The Eureka sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1902-current, 1903-11-14
EyyoR vs.. RAINE DECISION.
Nevada Supreme Court Decides in
Favor of ]. p. RAine.

in the important Pine Valley water
suit Of ]. r Ennor vs. ]. P. Raine.
The decision, with costs, is in favor Of
the defendant, J. P. Raine. The fol-
lowing extracts taken from the decision
Of the Supreme Court viii give the gen.
eral reader an explanation Of the
case:
This action was brought by J. X.
Ennor some years before his decease-
In his complaint he alleged that dur
ing al the year 1896 ne was the owner,
in the possession and entitled to the
possession of all that parcel Of land and
a-ppurtenances, situated in Pine Valley,
Eureka County, and known as Eanor's
ranch: that during ali that year he
owned and had constructed upon this
ranch various dams and bitches By and
through which he stored and accumula-
ted the waters Of Pine Greek, which dur
ing all that time flowed through and
upon the ranch; tia. by mea Of these
bitches he irrigated = large portion OF
the ranch during that time and Guilt
waited and induced the growth Of large
crops of hay; that portions of the ranch
require drainage; that there is no water
for the portions Of the ranch which re-
quire irrigation except that which is
stored and accumulated by means Of
these dams; that in July, 1896. and
while plaintiff was the owner and in
the possession of the ranch and the
dams and the bitches and appurtenan-
ces. the defendant unlawfully and with
force and violence entered and broke
down and destroyed plaintiffs dams.
whereby the water which he had there
fore stored and accumulated, for the
purpose Of irrigating his ranch was lost
and wasted, and a portion Of his ranch
was overiowed and the crops Of hay
thereon injured and destroyed; that by
reason OF this loss of water. plaintiff
was prevented from irrigating and
harvesting any crops of hay upon
certain other portions Of his ranch; al TO
plaintiff damage IN the sum Of 5000
for which he asked Judgment.
In his amended answer, the defend
ant denied al these allegations and by
way Of affirmative defense alleged that
he and his grantors had been the
owners and in the possession Of
the premises known as the Raine
ranch in Pine Valley since May 1865:
that Pine Greek is a natural
stream of water which, when unob-
structed, flows through his land; that
ever since May, 1868. except when IN
lawfully diverted, he aud his grantors
have used 700 miners inches Of the wa
ter of this creek in the beneficial and
necessary irrigation Of crops growing IN
his ranch; that such appropriation and
use was long prior to any diversion by
the plaintiff; that on the 18th day Of
July, 1896, plaintiff entered upon Pine
Greek above the bitches and dams Of the
defendant, and by means of the dams
and bitches mentioned in the complaint,
wrongfully INSTRUCTED the natural flow
of the water and diverted the whole
thereof away from the defendants
lands. and thereby deprived him of wa
ter for the irrigation of his hay, grain
aud vegetables, which, for the want Of
such irrigation were greatly injured and
about to become valueless; that there
upon the defendant entered upon the
Ennor ranch at the time stated in the
complaint without any unnecessary in
jury to the same, and only to the extent
needful. in order to permit such an
amount of water to flow down to the de-
PENDANTS crops as were necessary for
their irrigation.
Then 'for a cause of action and as a
counter claim" against the plaintiff
the amended answer repeated its fore
going allegations and averred further
that ON or about the 18th day of July,
1886, the plaintiff entered upon the
creek at points above the lands, dams
and bitches of the defendant, and by
means of certain dams and bitches
mentioned inA the complaint, wrong
fully diverted away from the crops and
lands of the defendant all the water of
the creek until the gath day of July,
1895; that by reason of such diversion
defendant dfnot have sufficient water
to irrigate his crops, which were dam
aged thereby to the extent of s3, 600. 90,
for which sum he demanded Judgment
against the plaintiff.
The plaintiff objected to the filing of
the amended answer. moved to strike
out and demurred on the grounds, first:
that the answer ''taken altogether is
contradictory. and does not state facts
sufficient to constitute a defense to the
cause of action set up in the complaint,
and second: on the ground that it is
ambiguous, uncertain and unintelligi-
BILE. The trial took place in the District