Bisbee daily review., 1904-04-05

Although the Territorial Supreme Corrt, with Chief Justice Kent, Asso- 1 ciate Judges Doan. Sloan and Davis sitting, handed down iu lie nelgebor- hood of fifty decisio,ls yesterday, 1 none were considered as important 10 the territory in general, ana MaTiIo pa county in particular, as he .at es of the users of water ag1,n-t ;he ca | nal companies, says the Phoenix Ca zette. The decisions of the lower court in thee ases of Martin Gould vs. | the Maricopa Canal company, Tom
 Brockman against the Maricopa Canal
 company, and J. D. Marian against he Grand Canal company, were revss6ed while the cases against the Salt Rivl i CT Canal company were affirmst, tre | Slosser decision being slightly .aoei- fled to conform with the other Gecis- 1 ions.
 i The court, in it's opinion. bears out
 every contention made by ". H. Stil- ! well, who began the fight against the
 water company and in behalf of the | water users in 1895. In brief it Is simply this: Users of water have l right to water without either pur-
 chasing or renting license to buy from the canal companies. The court holds that the company is a quasi-puo- lie servant, and therefore can not ar bitrarily discontinue the service in
 whole or in part. On this point the
 Slosser case was modified to conform
 with the decision. The Slosser de
 cision was 10 the effect that the ca nal comrany should deliver water to Slosser so long as it delivered water
 to other non-stockholders or water rigs> owners.
 Another poin. made by the court was
 that 8 water user acquired right to purchase water in the simple use for i, the irrigation of lands, it having beer once supplied the right can not be talk , en away from the claimant, althougt
 he can forfeit such a right by refus :, ing to purchase the water. Unles: :, the case is appealed to the Unitet a States Supreme Court, which is no
 considered probable, hereafter farm s CTS will only be required to tender reasonable sum to the canal comPa
 ny for the delivery of water, and th'
 water must be delivered so long a |. there is any water.
 s-i The decision was a great victory 10 -,' the farmers, obtained through the ei n forts of Judge Stilwell. It is consi( c. cred another step in the direction e the adjudication of all questions 1T D. volving water litigation in the valleI 1. When Judge Stilwell filed his first sui
 for Henry Slosser in 1895 all sort
 of obstacles were thrown in his wa. d and it was nearly two years later whe Ig the case was taken before Judge Sloa y of Yavapai county for trial. Her n the court upheld the cdhtentions C " Judge Stilwell. but an appeal was tal re en to the federal supreme cour sr where it remained for some time h. 1898 Judge Stilwell went to the va
 and turned his water cases over
 Judge J. H. Kibbey, who fled anothe m case for Henry Slosser against tn at Salt River Valley Canal company
 which was tried before Judge Street
 who rendered a decision exactly th d. reverse of the former case. This wa eei appealed to the Supreme Court, an
 Judge Sloan handed down his famou
 decision. Meanwhile Judge stilwe t. and Judge Kibbey had filed simila e. suits for Gould. Brockman and Maj
 lar The suit of Van Fossen was Al
 ed by Attorney B W. Lewis, and dt '" cision was handed down in this sever
 al weeks ago ft,........-.,