Arizona republican., 1905-09-21

nal company as an organization re- fused to sign it's lands to the Water Users association when that corpora tion was formed.
 The answer filed yesterday concludes by praying that the defendants making answer in this action, be dismissed; i; that their costs be recovered and that the plaintiff in the suit be granted nothing that will interfere with the Tempe Canal company use of water as now required under court decisions and practices of distribution.
 In making answer, the Tempe Canal company denies all allegations made by the plaintiff, Hurley, except that the Tempe lands are naturally arid and require irrigation water for their cul- tiVation; that the Salt river is an un- navigable stream and it's waters are a proper stream for appropriation for ir- Gigating purposes.
 The answer also alleges that the cause of the action did not accrue with in five years, nor ten years prior to the commencement of the suit of Hurley vs. Abbott; that on December 6. 1870, II 900 inches of water were apprOpri- ated by the predecessors in interest of the Tempe Canal company and have been used continuously by them and by the Tempe Canal & Irrigating com pany; that ' 1887 an action was be- gun Cknown as the WOrmser suit) to enjoin all the other canal companies in the valley from using any part of this 11,OO0 inches, as they were then alleged to be doing; that the defend ants in that suit denied the appropria tion of the Tempe Canal company but admitted that $500 inches of water, in cluding 1,5OO inches used for milling mn l1t ( he ha1 used continuously by the predecessors in interest of the Tempe Canal com pany; that as a result of that suit, on July 14, 1890, the court decreed that the several parties to that suit were en- titled to divert water according to a schedule, which. in the papers, is next attached. and which is popularly known as the Kibbey decision. According to that schedule, the Tempe Canal com pany is shown to have been entitled to ample water for it's beneficial use on IF quarter sections. the amount under cultivation in the year 1889 This would be 1S.720 ac~~- and later in the answer it is set forth that there is now under cultivation under the Tempe Ca nal company approximately 21,OOO acres
 The answer further alleges that the court decree of 1890 provides that the Hayden mill shall have the use of HOO inches of water for milling purposes. nerpetually. Further. that the court decreed that the defendants in the Wormser litiga tion. or parties to the action, should be forever restrained from using water otherwise than in accordance with the appropriations mentioned above, giving the stated to the Tempe or Wormser in f.ar.e eHzrE- q FlrI
 Another specific allegation made in the answer is that the plaintiff in this action, r. T. Hurley. is entitled only to such water as shall accrue to him through his rights in the Salt River Valley canal under which his property in question lies, and that the rights of the canal in question, as respects the quantity of water it is entitled to. were also defined by the decree. In other words, it says Mir. Hurley must look to the Salt River Valley Canal company for water and not try to get B portion of that the Tempe now claims.
 Next in order in the answer is long table showing the amount of water the Tempe canal mas carried for irrigating purposes and for the Tempe mill over a long period of years past in accord ance with the methods of distribution in vogue under the court decisions.
 This is not a literal copy of the an swer, which covers many typewriter