The White Pine news. [volume] (Ely, Nev.) 1906-1910, 1908-06-04
Bribery Imtimated Yes
terday--Much Conflict
ing Testimony Heard
By Jury-.Out Till LIS

The case of Hanson VS.. Clark en-
Tered upon its third day. When call
ed In the morning, Albert Heusser
was put on the stand by the defense.
He testified that he had been well
acquainted with the Hanson ranch
and vicinity since 1871 when ne had
been engaged In the cattle INDUSTRY
in that neighborhood. The ranch
was at that time owned by Mitchell
and Lyons. After that time until five
years ago he had been in the neigh-
borhood of the ranch. Hanson had
never to his knowledge used the wa
Ter to any great extent. He had. on
The other hand, allowed 1t to go prac-
tieally to waste. il flowing out into
marshy slough He was asked by
the defendant If he had observed any
change in the flow of water since the
ditch In controversy had been cleaned
out by Clark. This was at once oh
ieeted to by the plaintiif Judge PIKE
agreed to hear the law on the sub
jeet, presented in support OF the con-
tention of the defendant that the IN
creased water flow. which is declared
to be several times what II was be-
fore the ditch was cleared OF rub
bish. should be apportioned TO Clark
Fine Molieson, owner of neigh
.>>oring ranch In Spring valley was
<called to the stand In practically
all of his direct examination he sup
ported Heusser. On cross eXamlna-
tion he was asked II he was unbiased
toward Hanson and on friendly terms
with him at this time. The witness
was forced to admit that he was not
friendly with the plaintiff nor had
he been for . years on the other
hand they had hardly spoken during
that period. He was also asked II
he had not told W D. Campbell that
Clark would give him s1oo II he
would show him how TO obtain land
next to the Hanson holdings. lie
explained that he had helped Clark
survey the tract In question and for
that work had been paid the sum
mentioned.
b. f. Paine was called TO the
stand His testimony MAS principally
for the purpose Of determining the
course taken by the ditch In contro-
versy and the use to which the water
was put
Ruling upon the admissibility of
testimony relative to alleged Increase
i'm water through development work
done by Clark. the court held that
such testimony could be entered. TO
which exception was taken. Follow
ing this ruling. DR.. r. IL. Richard
son was called. testifying that nine
years ago in driving past the Hanson
\. ranch he had noticed the springs
Valid the volume of water produced.
Last week he had again noticed the
springs particularly and was satis-
fed that the present flow was larger
h. r. Payne was recalled He testi-
fled that he had known the spring
since 1899 and was familiar with use
of its water since that time. Hanson
had not used IL regularly. Joseph
Bassett. a neighboring rancher. and
Charles Heusser and A. II. Whitley
testified to the same effect
Joseph Melville testified that he
had visited the Hanson ranch In
1905. at which time Hanson told him
in the course of talk about the
spring that he had never owned II.
d. c. Mcdonald testified that he had
camped at the spring eight years ago
at which time there appeared 10 he
little water.
II. S. Clark followed on the stand.
lie presented papers establishing
homesteading OF his ranch and the
doing of all work since required by
law as well as the building of bitches
and the bringing of his ground under
irrigation. Had been told AT the
time of filing on his land that Han
son did not use the water from the
spring. information did not come
from Hanson. whom he did not know
at that time. c. r. Reeves was call
ed to testify as to water now De
clared IL more than sufficient Tor
Hanson ranch needs. In rebuttal,
John Morchert was called. testifying
that five days ago he had made an
examination of the spring, hnding
that the flow was much less than in
the early days. George Larsen and
w. b. Campbell were called. TESTIFY
ing that they had noticed no change
in the flow of the spring In the last
several years.
Hanson was recalled In rebuttal of
the evidence of Joe Melville, testify
ing that he had seen him once but
had never spoken to him about the
spring.
Albert Heusser was called, testify
ing that the spring was some dis
tanee from the road and that pass
ing along the latter one would hardly
he able to see II.
Arguments followed this testi-
.Aony, Murphy for the plaintiff and
f4,oleman for the defense. Instruc-
tions of Judge Pike failing to call
for damages. exception was taken by
both the plaintiff and defense, the
court allowing five days for the fill