Arizona republican., 1905-06-13
BENNITf VS. KAY The Election of the Latter
 Confirmed
Other Cases Before the COurt-The Arizona Water Company Ipiunc- ton To Be Heard Today.

hely yesterday Judge Kent having re- turned to the city in the morning, after an absence of ten days. Several cases were before the court but only two Of them were finally disposed of. One of them was the case of E. J. Bennitt against Harry Kay, a contest growing out of the water users election for soN- ernor in district No. 6. The proceed. ings consisted of a recount of the Dai- lots by which it was shown that the contestee had received a majority of 4O1. The original count gave him 2 majority of 260.
 The other matter was the condeInna- tion proceedings of J. w. Wedgeworlh against w. c. Dawes in which the for mer sued for right of way for a later al ditch from the Buckeye canal u his lands through those of the defendant It transDired that the lands occupied by both parties to the suit are school lands held under lease from the board of supervisors. The owner of these lands is the United States and the part ies could be regarded by the court only as tenants. In the opinion of the court a right of way through the holding Of one tenant could not be forced by an- other the theory being that a judgment
 
 an absolute title to the land involved in the controversy. Thus the court would be in the position of having deeded away government land Judg- ment was therefore given the defend ant.
 The case of the Arizona Water com pany against the Appropriators' Canal company came up on a motion by the defendant for dissolution of a tenn porary injunction issued last week oy Judge Campbell to restrain the de. fendant from diggng a canal thr rousn the lands of the petitioner. this side of the Cross-cut canal and between the Grand canal and the Tempe road.
 rather interesting incident in con- nection with this case arose. The re- cord shows that the attorneys for the petitioner are Messrs. Kibbey, Bennett and Bennett, Governor Kibbey being a member of the firm. This fact was alluded to by Thomas Armstrong, h., attorney for the Appropriators' Canal company at a meeting of the water commissioners last Saturday in which he stated that he believed an irIpru- priety had been committed.
 Governor Kibbey was present in court when the case was called and he saId he agreed with the views of Mr Arm- strong and he regretted that he ap- peared as of counsel for the petitioner. He said that as counsel for the Water Users association he could not with propriety take part in suits between the various canal companies.
 The Appropriators' Canal company desired an immediate hearing of the motion. It was stated on behalf of the company that the injunction had been violated by it and in view of the ex- traordinary needs of the farmers whom the company designed to serve the in junction would have to be violated.
 General Manager Cleary of the ArI- zOna Water company asked for thirty days in which to prepare the evidence of the petitioner. The request was de- nied and the matter was set for hearing today.
 The answer of the Appropriators' Canal company in which the dissOIu- tiOn of the temporary order was moved gave notice that condemnation proceed ings would be instituted. The answer stated that the ground through which the defendant has been digging has ne yer been used. It is unfenced and is covered with brush. The defendant requires a strip only fifty feet wide and alleges that $1OO would be a big price for it. It is also stated that before operations were begun the Appropria- tors offered the plaintiff company s250.
 The condemnation proceedings were actually begun last night by the fling of a complaint. Judge Kent issued an order fixing tomorrow as the time for hearing. The complaint describes the organization of the Appropriators' Canal company and states that 35,000 acres of land have been brought into relation with 1t. Of this number it is stated that 15,000 acres have no other source of supply. There is a compara tive description of the service of tke Arizona Water company and that If the Appropriators' Canal company with reference to the Grand canal. It is al legged that the Appropriators' canal up- on which 2,000 has been expended by the farmers themselves is now in successful operation.
 In the case of J. B. Alexander against J. L. B. Alexander the trial order was vacated. In the matter of the territOTy against BisseHH H. Thomas, the hearing of the defendants motion for permis- sion to withdraw his cash bail was re set for tomorrow. In the case of J. | w. Crenshaw administrator oe the estate of James T. Simms against iJ .IiIa A. Lount administratrix of the estate 1 of Hannah T. Simms the plaintiffs mo- tion for a new trial was reset for June If. The defendants motion for new trial in the case of Mary E. Purman against w. w. Cook, sheriff and others will also be heard tomorrow. Notion and demurrer in the case of Carrie 4. Lount and others against Thomas Hayes will come up tomorrow. The 1 cases Of the United States against Fi- | field and Gallagher in the matter of the | claimants, the Valley Lumber company, | The Gosart Plumbing company, the | Standard Iron Works and Walter Tal- | bot went over until October II. The | case of the DeMund Lumbeu company against the Mormon Girl Mining com l pany was set for Oct. 13-
 PRIVATE SALE.
 That elegant resident property, cor ner Jefferson street and Fourth avenue |