Arizona republican., 1902-05-28
DISTRICT COURT
 CONTEMPT CASES Three Convictions and Two
 Commitments
Messrs. smoot and Gould Will Be Allowed to Purge Themselves This Morning - A Feeling That the Clearing Up of the Situation Has Begun.

The contempt proceedings against certain water users charged with the breaking of head gates Of the Maricopa and Salt River Valley canals were in ished yesy erlay in district court by the commitment of two of the persons charged and the conviction of lhe third. with an opportunity to purge himself cf contempt at once.
 'ihe day ended with q better feeling among the farmers. They are hopeful that what they believed at first was d be. secutinn of them is really the begin ming Of q favorable settlement Of tl:e water dispute which has been going on in this valley in one form or another for nealy q quarter oi . century, and which has been in an acute stage fer the last ten years. They were given ss- sulances from the bench that they had q friend in court. and they believed it. 1 The men who were committed have
 greater regard for Judge Kent than l they had before, for, in sustaining the 1 ia# and preserving the dignity oi his court, he displayed his sympathy with ! the unfortunate defendants.
 The separate cases were net taken up until in the afternoon. The morning was devoted to q general hearing of ! the case Of the Maricopa canal compa- ny against the defendants who live undcr that canal. and an effort ,'as i made to show that there was collision among the members of the Maricopl 1 County Cooperative and Protective
 association to break the head gates in ease they could net get water without the purchase Of water rights. This i matter had been ilinted &tthe afternoon i before The first witness after noon was J. E. Hoover a member of the as scciation. He said that a a meeting he attended a resolution advocating the breaking of heed gates was almost unanimously passed by a viva voce vote. He had, however, voted against it. He was unable to swear that any particular member voted for it. but lie said that Al Smoct, one of the defend ants in the contempt proceedings, Was 2 leaGer in the movement. He also
 ,G.pliee.5.t. ;. l.. LI-eeo5 and other man.
 bers of the association. Both of thi gentlemen later said they were present
 at that meeting and that there was 10 such proposition before the house It
 was rot dis~ussel ana there was 70
 talk about il. Both cf them said they
 had heard it talked about on the street along with q variety Of other plans fol.
 the ciIcunVention Of the water com pa!-y. but so far IS they knew there
 WIs no conspiracy in the meetings of the association, CT elsewhere to
 break the g4tes. Those Wno had done SO, they said had done so ol their own
 motion. and because they had to have
 water
 At this point the trial of the defend ants charged with a violation of the or
 der of the court Was resumed The
 case oi SmCot had been heard the day
 before and il was Understood he yas
 only awaiting judgment
 The first case taken up was that of
 Martin Gould. The affidavit against
 him did not ailege that he had broken
 the head gate himself but that he had
 ordered his nephew t0 do it. The afIf-
 daVit had been made by Ira Richards. q guard for the company He said that
 lie had caught the boy in the act and
 that he had told him he was acting un- der G0uld'S instructions. The witness
 was asked if 1e had not served in the
 jail of this county. Objection was
 made that the question was irrelevant
 and the court inquired if it was not a
 fact that the satn was broken. The at
 torneys for the defense admitted that
 but they said they wanted to show
 that Richards was unreliable in his e. port cf the conversation with the boy.
 The question. was allowed and Rich
 ards replied that he had been an inmate
 ot the jail, but he could not recollact
 the Cffense for which he had been com m+tted. General Mana ger CIeary of the Arizona testified that al another. time 2 rt,r
 Gould did not go on the stand. but rest
 ed on his affidavit denying the charge against him.
 The case of Henry F. Slosser was
 then taken up The witness against him was Jos. Crier zaniero who said
 he Was called b. the defendant to see
 him break the gate. When it vas done
 the witness said he was about to low
 CT the gate when the defendant asked him how he knew he would let him Go | 1t. It was not done. The defendant l. took the stand. He admitted the breaking of. the gate under the circum- , stnaCes described by Grier He aid that his stock was suffering for wa ter; that his cattle were paving in he
 dlJ and dusty fields. Judge StillwaIl th" attorney fer the defendants, brought out the fact that the l defendant, SloSser had obtained i an Injunction against the va ter company, which he said had bean violated ever since it had been issued
 He pleaded that in justification. con tending that the defendant hai right l under an order of the court to the E;-a- l ter he had taken. Judge Kent, who had } all along ruled out questions of rights would not admit the fact of the in- : junction fer the purposes of idstifca- . tion. He alluded to the assurance siv- en by Judge Stilwell the day before that neither he or his colleagues had $ encouraged a violation of the courts l order. Judge Kent said he had accept ! ed that assurance, but it was difficult 7 to reconcile it with counsel's persistent l justification of the violation. He said - however. that it might appear in the
 record that the defendant had beer