Los Angeles herald., 1905-11-14
CITY WINS POINT
IN WATER CASE
MOTION FOR E0N-SUIT IS
DENIED
Judge Gibbs Orders San Fernando
Ranchers as Defendants to Open
Their Contest-RuIlng Con-
sidered Victory

The city of Los Angeles took first
honors yesterday in it's legal fight
against the ranchers of the San Fer
nando valley for the right to the wa
ters of the Los Angeles river, when
Judge Gibbs in department two of the
superior court denied the motion for
non-suit instituted by the attorneys
for the ranchers and ordered that the
defense open it's case this morning
The suit has been on trial for the past
five weeks and is one of the most stub
bornly contested in the history of Los
Angeles county water cases.
The city asks clear title to all the
waters of the Los Angeles river, while
the San Fernando ranchers allege that
they are entitled to rights of certain
parts of the stream and that most of
their water is pumped from wells and
not from the river SiXty-two ranchers
are included in the defense.
After scores of folios of evidence
were taken in the case, the city rested
and the attorneys for the ranchers i'm
mediately entered petition for non suit
and started argument.
City Attorneys Confident
Five days We're taken up in the argu-
ment for non-suit, and during that time
the defense brought forth nearly every
point upon which they will base their
side of the case. With this fact in
view, and the decision of Judge Gibbs
in denying the non-suit, attorneys for
the city are confident of winning the
case.
The chief points brought out by the
defense In its argument for non-suit
were that the city had failed to estab-
lish it's right to the river and that it
had further failed to prove the ranch
ers secured their water from the Los
Angeles river.
The opinion handed down by Judge
Gibbs is said by attorneys to be most
thorough. All claims are set forth and
answered with the exception of several
of technical nature, which Judge
Gibbs discussed at length and gave
precedents to support his opinion.
The opinion is in part as follows:
Ownership Is Paramount
"It is to be borne in mind. gentle
men, that a motion for non-suit could
not be gone into as thoroughly and
as carefully as would be done in the
decision of a case.
THE first question raised by the mo-
ton for non-suit is that the plaintiff
has failed in the material allegations
of the complaint. The answer to that
would be that, in the mind of the court,
plant have been sustained.
No proof of ownership, of para
mount ownership
THE proof of the ownership and the
paramount ownership and the use of
the water have been sustained.
mo rights In the river paramount
TO the defendants.
And the fourth is in substance the
same question. The proof is that the
city has for one hundred and thirty
four years in its various political
changes, and whenever opposed, has
successfully resisted any claim to the
use of the waters of Los Angeles river
by anyone else. This, to my mind, is
sufficient proof that the city of Los
Angeles is the successor of the pueblo
as to it's claimed right to the use of
the waters of the river.
mo proof that the pueblo owned
the water rights, or that they We're set
apart to the owners of lands
ut is true that there is no proof that
the pueblo owned either the lands or
the water in perfect title. There
seemed always something yet to be
done; but one in possession, as the
pueblo was. might truthfully say that
he owned the land and the water, as 1t
was so recognized in them and has
been ever since.
Proof ls Sufficient
mo proof that the defendants are
using the waters of the river
THE proof is that both plaintiffs and
defendants are using the waters OF
the Los Angeles river and IL both