The Courier. (Genoa, Nev.) 1899-1904, 1903-06-12

can raise a hay crop with that, and
many years they will get fair grain
crops and vegetables But why should
the plaintiffs notify the defendants not
to take water out of the river? The
water was diverted when there was
plenty for all.
The defendants do not claim in their
testimony that they took any water
belonging to plaintiffs, and many have
testified that they would not take any
water that belonged to others if they
knew it, The first who testified were
caught into such admissions, but the
last could not be budged even into
answering the question.
The plaintiffs never failed to raise
good, fair average crops and to fill out
their grain until the year 1898, when
they lost about one-third of their grain
and their fall feed.
In 1864 the Union Mill and Mining
Company sued all the farmers on the
East and West Forks of the river for
wrongful diversion, and obtained a
decree against them enioining them,
etc. After 1864, and up to 1888, the
Mill Company, every year, kept an
agent on each fork of the river TO run
their mills, and some OF the agents
went as high as Woodfords and shut
off the water from the upper Diamond
Valley bitches. The extent of this in
reference on the part of the mill agent
is not well shown by the evidence, ex-
oept that the water did come down,
and that the Douglas farmers would
, get some of it.
In 1868 or 1869 dispute arose be-
, tween the millmen and some defen-
dants and plaintiffs, wherein the de-
PENDANTS and plaintiffs claimed it
. would do the millmen no good and did
} them no good to turn the water down,
because it would not reach them. So
committee was appointed, and they
J shut down all headgates from point 3
down, and watched the water for a
couple of days, and it failed to reach
! Squires' place This is dwelt upon as
important by defendants. But the
: testimony shows that all bitches above
point 10 were kept running full, and it
t further shows that the farmers played
, trick on the mill agent, by turning
the water in field ON the Dressler
2 ranch, and when the committee came
t back they found the field flooded two
: or three feet deep. The plaintiffs testi-
: fy positively that /, 80 inches of water,
) being the least quantity ever found in
l the river above all bitches, would
3 reach them all, and at that time of the
; year they could make a great benefi-
' cial use of it by using it in point oi
I time, and turning it on to save crops
, where most needed,
We never know how nicely we can
get along with little until we have to-
Men who were always hard-up in Vir
: ginia City at ten dollars day are now
e doing nicely in san Francisco on two
dollars day. To hear them talk in
e Virginia they were actually pinched
for the necessaries of life So with the
defendants; they swear they cannot
get along without that water for q
3 single minute from April to October
+, but their position is held absurd by
those who have to go without it by the
month.
1t is urged by defendants that plain
tiffs are the richest, and better able to
Q build reservoirs, and that in fact they
Y now have reservoirs. All this testi
mony was objected to, and the objec
tions are yet insisted on upon the
ground stated. But the evidence
shows that only a few of the plaintiffs
own reservoir sites, and not reservoirs,
and that the money has yet to be ex-
pended to store water, and it is sub
mitted that the water will belong to
those who ,expend it. The evidence
shows that the defendants can build
reservoirs cheaper than the plaintiffs,
and store water in different places
Besides, under the claim of the de
fendants that because the SHOWS are
deposited in Alpine county, melt in