The Ordway new era., 1909-09-24
full charge OF the compauy's business.
ANSWER IN DETAIL.

lull charge OF the cOmpauy's business.
ANSWER IN DETAIL.
In response to the plaintiff 3 COM
plant, the defendant, the Twin Lakes
Land aud Water company, died Its
answer with the clerk Of the district
court yesterday. In the answer the
defendant denies generally the ale
cations OF the plaintiffs complaint,
and sets out that In January, 1900,
there was u similar suit commenced
In the district court Of Pueblo county
against IL, 10 which case certain par.
ties atteDped to get control of the
company's business and take over the
management Of its affairs, Just as. IL
Is charged, the plaintiffs are trying to
do 10 this case, aud II points out Ger
tain portions Of the decree or judg.
ment entered 10 that case, which show
that the court denied the plaintiffs
the relief asked for and held that the
company was wholly competent and
able " manage It's affairs and distrib-
ute the water TO the water consumers
! under the canal, and that every water
consumer was getting his pro rata
share Of the water from the canal. as
+, provided by his deed; that the com.
ps0y was managing the canal 10 a pro-
per manner, and that after IL had
done certain construction work On the
canal II would have the right to sell
water TO new consumers, the full ca.
pacity OF the canal, which the court
found to be S33 eighty.acre water
rights Of l.S cubic feet per second Of
time, drawn from the Arkansas river.
In substance, the court 10 this former
case, as IL alleged in the defendants
answer. denied the plaintiffs the re-
lief asked for and sustained the de-.
fendaut's contention.
CROSS CoMPLAINT.
In addition to the answer, the de-
fendant. the Twin Lakes Land and
Water company, dies cross s-complsint
against the plaintiffs, and all Of their
associates and those whom they repre-.
sent. It Is alleged In the cross-com-
plai0t that the defendant became the
owner OF the canal In controversy aud
about $1,000 acres Of land. in Februs-
ry, 1899. and that Its title was subject
to certain water deeds outstanding !;
that 1t has ever since managed the
affairs OF the company 10 q proper
way and from time TO time sold addi-
tional water rights and land that the
water rights and lands OF the plaintiffs
and all other property have rapidly
increased 10 value until At the present
time they are among the most valua-
BILE water rights aud lands 10 the Ar.
kansas valley.
1t also sets out that the Twin Lakes
reservoir, located near Leadville, Col.
orado, is q part Of the system, and
supplies water to the lands under the
canal In times Of scarcity; and that
Lake Meredith. large bOdy Of water
south Of Sugar City, is also a part of
the system, and is used as a supple
mental supply during times Of scar
city. +
CHARGE CONSPIRACY.
As direct allegation against the
plaintiffs and others, the defendant
sets out In Its cross complaint that
they have formed an unincorporated
association and are conspirlng and
confederating together to usurp the
control of the affairs of the defendant
company, and to get the same In their
own hands. and are doing many things
to hinder, cucumber and delay the
defendant company in serving Its wa
ter consumers who have right to
draw water through the canal that
the plaintiffs and others have at many
times taken more water than they are
entitled TO and applied 1t upon lands
for which they have no water rights !;
that they have interfered with the
proper distribution OF water, and have
threatened with violence those whose
business II 10 TO see that every farmer
gets hts proper proportion Of the wa
i y - h~n -