Arizona republican., 1902-05-27

not land owners. He attempted to show that the water was the property of the farmers and that in taking it they had only exercised a right which belonged to them. In the course of his argument he alluded to his and his colleagues connection with the head gate breaking. He said he was not aware that any gates had been broken or that it was intended to break any since the order of the court had been made restraining the defendants from interfering with the property of the company. He was quite sure also that neither of his colleagues had encour- aged any of their clients to break the gates.
 Judge Kent replied that he was grati- fled to learn that the attorneys had not in any way contributed to the alleged discbedience of the orders of the court. As to the contention of Judge Stilweli regarding the rights of the defendants he said that that question had not been raised in the action then pending. He regretted the unfortunate condition Of the farmers and he stood ready to afford them any possible relief when the matter should be presented to him in the proper way. The only question q complaint that the property of the canal companies had been interfered with As he had stated in a recent decision extending the injunction, he said that there must be some system attic distribution of the water. The users could not be permitted to help themselves The injunction was then made perpetual.
 After this matter had been disposed of the case of C. Agner was taken up. He lives under the Maricopa canal and two weeks ago was before the court charged with the breaking of d head gate. He pleaded guilty then, was fined fifty dollars and the costs. It was expected something was going to happen to him this time but the com pany was. unable to make a case against him. He swore that he had not broken the gate and there was no enc tc swear that he had done it. He was discharged.
 | The next case was that of Al Shoot. 1 The first witness was Dick Stroud, the company's zanjero He said that he had seen the gate broken. The de- fendant had called to him and asked him if he wanted to see it done. He said he would and took a seat beside the gate while the defendant helped himself to water. Another witness i testified to the same thing.
 ! The defendant admitted all these things but he added other circum- stances that for while put him in d more favorable light and evidently gained the sympathy of the court. He said he had about seventy-five head of horses and cattle which would suffer i before the next run of water. He i asked the ZanierO to turn in enough to ! fill the tanks and he refused to do so. He then broke the gate open. After the water had run five minutes fe told Stroud that he might shut the gate. Stroud replied that he had no orders from the company as to that and he sat on the bank of the canal for half an 1 hour talking to the defendant ia a i friendly manner.
 ! In reply to questions by the court the defendant admitted that though he had asked only for water for his stock, while il was running he let it run around some trees he had and over q small area of alfalfa land. Stroud was called to the stand again and admitted that the defendant had told him that ne might shut the gate but that he had replied that it was not worth while since il would he opened again. Stroud said Ee had been told by q ncighb0l' that he had given Smoot permission to cut his ditch to fill his water tanks and that he had refused to avail himself of the permission. A young man by the name of Kritser who works for Smoot. took the stand He went into the particulars of the irrigation of alfalfa. He took pains to explain to f In II, h I,,+i r. farm did not involve the breaking of head gates.
 It now appeared that the water was and that there had been more or less systematic irrigation. The court
 asked Smoot if he had been served with
 a copy of the injunction. He replied
 that he had been served The next
 question was somewhat ominOus. The court inquired if there was anybody at
 home to look after his stock. He re-
 piled that his mother was alone. The court then said that the decision would
 not be announced until this afternoon and he admonished the defendant to
 make arrangements in the meantime
 fer someone to look after his affairs at
 home for a while.
 The other defendants were called up
 but as there was another matter re-
 qulring q hearing their cases went over
 until o'clock this afternoon.
 The other case was that of I. \. HOl-
 lister vs. Lloyd B. Christy, administra-
 ter of the estate of Jared Woodbridge.
 The plaintiff claims to have been d
 partner of Woodbridge and he desires
 that the property of Woodbridge in the
 hands of the administrator be turned
 ever to him. It was late in the after
 noon when the case was taken up and
 the plaintiff was the only witness ex- amincd.
 PAUNCEFOTE'S FUNERAL.