Los Angeles herald., 1908-01-01
AWARD OF
$4,000 ENDS
LONG SUIT
SALT COMPANY WINS FIGHT
FOR DAMAGES
FLOODING OF sALToN SEA CAUSE
OF CONTEST
California Development Company Held
Responsible for Inflow of Waters
from Colorado River
in 1904

Victory and the award of $456,74623 was
the fate of the New Liverpool Salt COM
pany at the hands of Judge Olin Well
born in its suit against the Callfornla
Development company, which was de-
cIared to be responsible for the destruc-
ton of the salt company's property by
the overflow of the Colorado river into
the Salton sea. The award is declared
to be the largest ever made in the circuit
court of the Ninth district.
The suit was filed April Z, 1905, and
has been bitterly contested. total Of
1924 346.2 q was asked for in the original
complaint, but the claims of $4,000 for
railroad and $4,000 for loss of business
were not allowed. The decision carries
with it restraining order sought to pre-
vent the development company from dt-
verting other than irrigation water from
the river The plant OF the salt company,
however, still remains submerged in the
deep waters of the Salton sea.
The California Development company
began it's work of developing territory
In the neighborhood of the Colorado river
In the latter part of 1904, and Is said to
have failed to provide floodgates and
other means of protection against the
waters of that river. Suits TO restrain
the company from diverting the river
water for other purposes than irrigation
were filed the next year, and these suits
were fought as strenuously as was the
one asking damages.
Companies Held as One
Judge ]. w. Mckinley and Attorneys
e. j. McCutcheon and Purcell Rowe rep
resented the salt company in the SUIT
while Attorneys L. A. Meserve and John
Chairman defended the development
company.
Judge Wellborn, in his decision, de-
clares that neither the Mexican company
nor the mutual companies when were
brought into the case are necessary par
ties for various reasons. In the first
place the companies, he says, were Or
ganized by the development company
and are now acting fundamentally lot
effecting the diversion of water com
nIained of and should be considered for
the purpose of the suit as luenli0ai WIN
the defendant.
Judge Wellborn declares the grounds
for Injunction have not been removed by
the destruction of the salt company s
works and by the closing of the salt
company's intakes. and says the COM
nlainant Is entitled to have its freeholu
protected without regard to the amount
of damage threatened; otherwise the
overflow might rlpen INTO seiFis"ue
upon the land.
Discussing the merits of the case the
court saws the question is largely an
issue of fact, and concludes that the
waters which overlooked the land be-
longing to the salt company, destroying
its property were largely, If not en-
tirely. the waters diverted from the Colo
RADIO river through the intakes Oh the de-
velopment company.
Negligent, Says Court
The court declares the defendant was
negligent, among other respects, in not
selecting proper places for the intakes
and in not providing suitable headgates
to control the flow, and says this negli-
gence was the direct cause of the over
flow and the resulting loss of property.
The court gives little heed TO the claim
of the development company that the
floods of 1905 would have overflowed the
salt company's land, even II no intakes
had been provided, and says the conten-
ton lacks merit and is pure speculation
ana unsusceptible of proof. He says 1t
is not an improbable conjecture that the
securing of the bed of the river by the
floods of 1905. following each other IN
quick succession, would have so deep
ened the rivers channel that the waters
would have found their way to the gulf,
rather than the Salton basin, whence
they were DETECTED by the intakes.