Arizona republican., 1907-01-18
TOMBSTONE WATtRCASf
 HAS BEEN SUBMITTED
The Great Upper Giia Valley Irrigation Suit Was Argued in the Supreme Court.

Only two cases were before the su- preme court yesterday one was that of the city of Tombstone plaintiff and appellee against the Huachuca Water company defendant and appellant from Cochise county. The suit had been brought to secure an injunction against the waer company to prevent it from tearing up it's pipes and remov- ing its activities to Bisbee. In 1881 the water company secured fran chise from the town of Tombstone then in the height of it's population and fame to lay pipes along the streets and alleys for the purpose of supplying the city with water. The water was to be brought from the Huachuca mountain thirty-five miles away and the franchise was given life of fifty years. This water service. by the way was said by experts to be one of the best in the United States.
 A time came when it did not pay the company to maintain this service and it proposed to establish a plant at Bisbeo. using the pipe and such other material of the Tombstone plant as could be used.
 Injunction proceedings against a discontinuance of the service were be- gun on the ground that the franchise was contract which could not be thus summarily abrogated. The defendant offered several reasons for its intend ed removal. The most pertinent of which was that the enterprise had ceased to pay. IL was also shown that the company had a bonded indebted ness of S400.00O and had not the money to make the necessary repairs to the plant.
 IL was also set up that the unprofit able condition Of affairs had been largely brought about by the fact that large number of citizens of Bisbee had transferred their patronage to the Tombstone Improvement company which was supplying them with water pumped out of the mines.
 The plaintiff met these dcfenses by saying that the fact that the company mad incurred a bonded indebtedness Of $4OO.0OO merely indicated had manage ment for which the plaintiff was not responsible. That the defendant was without money 10 make the necessary
 
 by its avowed urpose to transfer it tU Tombstone. a move which would in vDlve the cNTrn2fuIe of great deal more n,uncy .4an would be required for repairs. But this also had nothing c.. i1 with the rnfG rcemcnt of the con tract.
 Concerning the statement that citi- zens of Tombstone were patronizing the Tombstone Improvement company to such an extent as to seriously in terfeIe with the profits of the defend ant .hc plaintiff contended that it had not been supported by evidence. But if iJ had that would make no diffrrarc. f.r ;ke citizens of Tombstone were not parties to the contract of 1881. The cry cruld not be held responsible for tiie-r patronage of another com pany. That another company had ben given Q lnchise was nothing of wh;ch the ucf-ndant could complain siI:e its fra IC iIse was not an C;StiLs..e one.
 OIi the showing a judgment was given for the city and the @ "parS appealed. The case was argued yes- t=rlay by O. GibsOT for the company aHd by Col. Pickett for the ''ty of IC:1' stone.
 The other matter before tine court was the MOnteZuma Canal company and others appellants against the Smithville Canal company and others, appellees from Graham county. This suit was instituted several years ago for the purpose of establishing the status of every one water user and canal company in the Upper Gila valley and almost every one of them was on one side or the other. The case in the beginning bore some es- cmblance to that of Hurley vs. Abbott in this county. The resemblance was not kept up though and the controversy turned into an old fashioned water fight in which the Montezuma com pany sought to retain the possession of a thousand inches of water which had been given it by an order of the court years ago. Two Phoenix law firms with extensive experience in water litigation naturally became in volved in this dispute. one of them, Armstrong & Lewis, is associated with C. l.. Rawlins for the Montezuma com