Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1908-01-21
BRIGHTON WATER
GETS ATTENTION
Certain StipuIations Pass With
out Objections from Anyone
Others Resisted.
PROGRESS TRIAL CONTINUES.
Decision Hardly Ia be Expected for
Some Time Although City's Case
Is Practically Completed.

The suit Of the Progress company
against Salt Lake City which was
taken ~ again this morning as the
forteth day of trial. was marked by
the Introduction OF the claims to GER
tain water rights at Brighton resort
and other portions of the Cottonwood
canyon by persons having cottages at
the summer resort and by persons
claiming water for other uses TO be
taken from various sources tributary to
the Cottonwood stream. The stipula-
lions made by the party-defendants to
the big suit were made without objec-
ton by either the plaintiff or the city
CERTAIN RIGHTS GRANTED.
Among the stipulatlons entered into
at this mornings session were those III
which the following named persons
were admitted to have the right to use
from che tributaries of Cottonwood
creek such water as might be required
for domestic and culinary uses. Those
present IN court or represented by coun-
sci IN This matter were Judge o. w.
Powt s, Horace G. Whitney, ]. II.
Thomas. Sadler, Hooper, Lawrence, An
ME Hampton, Rosina Godbe, j. II.
Brown. woodruff. r. d. Lewis. Annie
Hooper Game. II. S Ellerbeck, n. =
Darling, Frank Knox, w, b. Short, FL
len Short. Mary Crltchlow. Hampton
Morris, Marion G. Brooks Mrs, Emar-
eta Pyper George r. Odel r. w
Young. Mrs w T.. Anderson, Paul Nell
den. Paul Williams DevereauX Jen-
nings. Harold Fabian. L. w Druce
Carolina Powers. WIN Rees, George
r. Goodwin. Old Evergreen Mining
company Taylor-AImstrong company
j. II. Moyle, Samuel McNutt and Bag
ley brothers.
CAN WATER STOCK.
The greater number of the above arc
the owners of cottages at Brighton
summer resort. and their claims are
to waters to be taken from different
springs. creeks and lakes at the head
of Big Cottonwood canyon The right
of II. c. Whitney and Mrs. Emeretta
Piper include the right to use water
for the purpose OF watering stock and
the right was agreed to IN the stipula-
ton George r. Odell asked that his
right be recognized to power water to
be used to generate power TO be used
to light his cottage. The plaintiff
was unwilling to stipulate this right,
exacting proof. The right to spring
east OF the resort was claimed by all
parties. the water to be used for drink
ing purposes and the right was ac-
ceeded
SOME REQUESTS RESISTED.
The right was stipulated in the Bag
ley brothers to use water from natural
channels In Bear creek. Willow Patch
creek and Silver Spring cheek to be
used to water stock ON grazing land
the water to be permitted TO seek the
natural channel. The Woodland Cop
per Mining company was recognized as
having the right TO use water from
Lake Solitude for drinking and culinary
uses The same rights We're recognized
In w. G. Hall Anna NJ. Lowe and
Franklin Wells for a mining property
opposite the Maxfield mine. The re-
quest of j. II. Moyle for the stipua-
ton to recognize the rights of the Tay-
lor-Armstrong company and himself TO
the use of water for irrigating a mea-
dow, watering stock and the right to
dam Silver Lake was resisted and he
will be required to produce proof. The
claim of Samuel McNutt for the use
OF water to irrigate two acres or a
homestead two miles above the upper
| power plant was resisted, the stipula-
| ton covering only such water as may
| be needed for domestic and culinary
purposes.
| WANT RIGHTS DEFINED
There was no real contention. as the
! plaintiffs in the case only desired to
| have the water rights of the various
| property owners defined. and when it
| was stated that the owners OF cottages
| set up a claim to the water flowing
past their cottages and that they had
used this for many years past for cul-
mary and domestic purposes, and then
only during the months Of June. July,
August and September there was no
contention and the various rights were
speedily recorded. The crowd of Wit
nesses thereupon withdrew and the
main branch OF the case between the
Progress company and the city pro-
ceeded.
DECISION FAR AHEAD.
Judge Hiles. chief counsel for the
city. announced during court that the
city's case would probably be conclud-
ed during the afternoon. Following
the city's case, Moyle. Thomas. Brgh-
ton and McNutt win produce their
proof and they VIII be followed by a
number OF the ditch companies. All
indications point to the ending of the
case at a remote date. as the taking
OF evidence viii be followed by lengthy
arguments and the decision may he
delayed for some time after the case
Is finally submitted for adjudication.
ANOTHER DURAND ECHO.
Iotpau nauay md ATrq