Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1909-08-24

MANY ALLEGATIONS DENIED.
Citizens Rcfutc Statement That Goull-
55 Try is Only Valuable for Use
ga As Mining Property

.fJ
The residents ofsthe town of Bingham
canyon who were made defendants in q
suit brought by Col, Enos A. wall u
restrain the dumping of sewage ana
other matter into Carr Fork and Bins-
ham canyon creek, have filed an answer
denying the allegations Of Col, Wall
frhe suit was but one or many dftieul-
ties which Col. Wall has had with the.
town authorities and residents over the,
water rights The suit was against
s.Irrederick5 IT, Straup and about l1v
others, including the Boston consoli-
4 dated Mining company, the Jordan
school district the town of Bingham
and the state board OF health Soi'
Wal. Gowns a mill which uses the
waters of the two streams and he
charges that the residents along the
bank are dumping Into the streams the
worst sort OF filth and refuse, preJu-
dicial to health and making the Watcr
unfit for use III his mill,
The answer fled Jointly by all the
defendants denies specifically the stat Z
ilents of Col Wall. that the country
through which these streams flow s
only valuable for mining purposes or
that the population for As years mas
been unsettled and itinerant and that
4 from the earliest settlement the waters
have been rendered by their use n
mining unfit for domestic purposes On
the contrary they assert that while the
waters have been used intermittently
for mining purposes 1t has not been
their primary use but that for 40 years
they have been used for domestic pur-
poses, for sprinkling purposes and Tor
sewage. They admit that de POSTS n1
the nature Of which complaint as made
are being dumped into the streams, but
deny that there lis any offense from
such or that 1t Is in any way pref tclal
Il To health
They do not admit that the waters of
the streams are necessary for the mill
but aver that the ter rights We're
J,assed upon In a former suit brou ghts
by Coll Wall against the Town Of
Bingham when the courts adjudged
that the town had the right to use both
streams 81 @
me topography. Of the country in
which the town Is located, they say,
makes Il It necessary that there should
be an open channel in the streams rllt
ming through the canyon to carry off
refuse and drainage, otherwise pestil-
ence would be bred and the peoples >
health jeopardized.a Col. Wall, ~ they
state, acquired his tmillsite we'll know
ing the conditions and previous use 10 +
the waters and it Is not for hinlYHow
To make complaint. They ask that ms
complaint; be dismissed.
JUDGMENT REVERSED. i'i'is' e
Supreme Court Holds Inpropcr Eivt-5
dcncc Was Omitted. 81,
The supreme court in an opinion
written BY Chief Justice y. N. 4Straup,
the other justices coneurrtng, has
reversed the Judgment Of the Ihird,
n district court In 8 a suit brought by
Lena M yers against the San Pedro,
Los Angeles 81 Salt Lake railroad, The
action was brought BY Mrs Myers for
I; damages for the death Of her husband. z
CIV. Myers, who was n conductor on
s one of the company $ freight trains
and was. killed In collision between
two sections$of the train at Beryl, Iron
I county She sued for 100000. The
case was tried before Judge T. D.
Lewis and a verdict of 81 900 rendered
by a jury8on May ia, 1908.
8 The two sections of the train were
operated MS DISTINCT and separate
trains. Negligence was charged In
operating these without regard to.
schedule. The supreme court holds.
that the lower courttwas notsin error
lin charging the jury that the members
of the train crews We're not fellow
servants but reversed the judgm ent on
the ground of. Improper admission OF,
evidence at the trial. #