Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1906-11-05
r.deraI Court Finds in Favor OF
The Farmers and Against
The Shelters.
u,s Saving Clause Which Gives
defendants Thirty Days in
Which to Appeal.
OPINION is FAR REACHING.
,.,. hundred Nineteen Farmers We're
Plaintiffs and the Case Was Most
stubbornly Fought.

,rd,e John A. Marshall Of the fed
.,Icurt today handed down an opin'
d, IN the famous smelter smoke dam
are case brought by the Valley Farm
81 association, 400 In number. In
which they asked for the abatement
a, ite nuisance or the closing OF the
n,lcrs Judge Marshall's decision
Is A complete victory for the plain.
ms Aough It has a saving clause for
tbe battt OF the smelter operators,
vi, are gwen thirty days in which to
ysal or to show that they
hrs Instituted means that have re-
dlcsd the dangers resulting from the
fumes since the institution OF the
fuIt
IN bis opinion Judge Marshall gives
4 brei history OF the case and takes
ps number OF the principal conten-
tons in the briefs submitted by attor-
~, on either side. Answering an
eHtion OF the defendants, Judge
hrhall says:
The injury from smelter fumes has
ktn cumulative on the one hand and
has, on the other, extended, as the
time has elapsed, over wider area.
Farmers who had not been injured
we're not required TO anticipate this;
and as to such complalnants. their
.sht to an injunction has not been
Aiyed.'
The defendants contended that the
tmpalnants should have proved own
'rhlp, as well as possession of tho
Trcperty alleged to have been damaged
~ the smelter smoke, but the court
'eld that this was not necessary. Many
y the complainants went upon the
tand as Witnesses In the case and |
sstlfed that they were the owners of |
he property so injured.
A. s. & r. PLEA.
A plea Of the American Smelling &
ishning company was that II II only
I'D operated. no damage would have
zen done. The court held that 1t was
foyen from the testimony that II had
'aterially contributed to the nuisance
implanted Of
JURISDICTION AND DAMAGE.
me courts jurisdiction had been
'aiensed on the ground that no one
'nplanant would have suffered actual
image TO an amount exceeding $1,000.
ldse Marshall was OF the opinion that
. value OF the matter in dispute is
eValue Of the claimed right of which
= oelendants will be deprived by the
an'lhg OF the relief sought, and In
'slusIon he says;
WHAT COURT SAYS.
AN the defendants. excepting the
'snam Consolidated Mining & smelt-
company and the Bingham Copper
Dold Mining company, affirmatiyely
w TINS value In sum largely ex-
Jung the minimum limit Of jurisdic-
' ana all OF the defendants have
W heir chief defense on evidence OF
value, The difficulty is that with
wv 10 the two defendants above
w nowhere In the bill or answer is
~ any specific ayerment as TO the
= VI 'ne matter In dispute; and as
"ose defendants no decree on the
s can be entered In this state OF
''esdlngs. However, az the evil
= 81 the defendants clearly shows !
tu'red value, the compIainants
y permitted TO file an amendment
''' Dill In this respect to conform y
'"s proof, Sufficient authority for !,
VIII be found in Tremaine Va
'a'ock, % Wall. SIS.
DEFENDANTS ENJoINEp. t
~" The fling OF the amendment fl
'' a decree win be entered. en- c
- each OF the defendants from a
~, roasting or smelling or +
ores carrying over 10 "
,'h' sulphur, and at their presen, 4
80 as to discharge into the :
'.paere the sulphur in the form Of
d. rom the further dI.charsins
b, - Of arsenic; provld- y y
- the defendants. or any one Or 4 4