The daily sentinel., 1907-05-21

charge OF the prosecution while At
torney J. S. Carnahan defended Mr..
staup. The defendant entered a plea
of not guilty.
A young man named Downing was
the complaining witness.
Only about thirty minutes were
consumed in securing jury Of twelve
men, and the introduction of evil
dence began at 1890 o'clock.
Attorney Fry In his opening state
ment to the jury stated that the prose
cution expected to prove that Staup
was guilty of the charges made in the
two counts of the complaint. He stat
ed that Hannah Creek Extension
Ditch No. runs through the Staup
ranch and alleges that Staup has been
guilty for at least is months of OBJ
structlng the ditch and pollutlng the
water. He stated that the evidence
would show that Mr.. Staup had built
COW lots, hog pens, etc. close to the
ditch and in such manner that the
refuse, drainage, manure. etc, found
its way into the ditch water. that
hogs were permitted to wallow in
the ditch, that dead chickens were
thrown into the ditch. It is further
nAeiA'h AAhA HNpHA' AAfiAta bh AhA NAANh
below Mr.. Staup use the water for
Domestic and irrigation purposes.
that the water had been so contamin-
ated that stock refused TO drink It
and people using II had been made
sick. 1t was further alleged that Mr..
Staup had been notified by the neigh
bors that he was polluting the ditch
but that he continued to allow mat
ters to remain the same.
d. r. Walker of Whitewater em-
pioyed on the Staup ranch last sum
mer was the first witness called by
the prosecution.
Walker told the location of the cor
rails, pens. etc. John Downing, the
complaining witness testified as to
Investigations he had made and gave
other testimony Intended TO substan-
tiate the charges he had made against
Staup. He denied that he had pre-
ferred the charges out of Ill will.
Samuel l.. Dodgion told of the con-
dition of the water in the ditch and
what he knew about conditions on
the Staup ranch The most interest
ing witness called by the prosecution
was Mr.. Downing. father of the COM
planning witness. lie stated that he
had examined the ditch as It run
through the Staup ranch on May 10
Downing was very emphatic that the
corrals. hog pens. brush piles. etc on
the Staup ranch contaminated the
water I'm the ditch, However. taken as
a whole this witness's evidence was
not very strong or discriminating He.
as did other witnesses, admitted that
the people using the water from the
ditch for irrigation purposes rarely
ever had attempted to use the water
for domestic purposes. not for many
years IT ever at all had the water
been generally used for domestic
purposes.
Attorney Carnahan. for the de-
fense, asked Downing If he was not
particularly desirous of prosecuting
Staup because the latter had refused
to sign criminal case bond for his
son, the prosecuting witness. Down
ing denied the charge.
At 2.45 O'Clock this afternoon, be-
fore introducing any witnesses for
the defense, Attorney Carnahan made
a motion that the court dismiss the
case without il going to the jury.
He held that on no charge In either
count of the complaint had evidence
been introduced sufficient to warrant
the case going to the jury, that there
had absolutely been no evidence to
show that the defendant had inpeded
the ditch or done anything that
might lead to the contamination of
the water. that he had not committed
an offense in the eyes of the law.
Judge Sullivan sustained Attorney
Carnahan's motion to dismiss the 1st
count in the Indictment but refus-
ed to sustain motion to dismiss the
second count. Statute under which
which the first count was brought
makes It an offense to "polute OF
obstruct a running, natural steam.
The court held that an irrigation
ditch is not a running. natural stream
and thus quashed the count. The
second count charges that Staur
threw or discharged noxious matter
into the ditch and the court held he
could be tried on this.
The defense then called Walter
Farmer as a witness, there Will be
only two or three witnesses for the
defense.
1t is the general opinion that the
evidence against Staup has proven
very weak and the statement thai
the case is a result Of spite work
seems TO be pretty well founded.
An acquittal is practically assur'
ed