The daily sentinel., 1910-03-04

trlct court, dealt largely Win tue
land values of the Vineland district,
the damage to be done to the orchards
by the ditch, the question of seepage
damage, direct and immediate dam
age, etc.
The Orchard Mesa district contend-
ed that it was perfectly willing to pay
reasonable damages but that the land
was not going to be damage to the ex-
tent the orchardists claimed it would
be damaged.
great many witnesses were intro
duced at the hearing, including many
of the most prominent citizens and
land owners of the valley, particular
ly of the upper end of the valley.
Witness after witness testified as to
the actual and probable damages.
The testimony of witnesses intro
duced by the Orchard Mesa people
indicated that the LAND ACTUALLY
OCCUPIED by the right of way was
worth from 81 500 to $4,000 per acre.
The defendants and witnesses for
the defense testified that the land
ACTUALLY OCCUPIED by the right
of way is worth from S2,25O to S2,-
500 per acre. But II must be re-
membered that the land actually oc-
cupied is in all only about six acres.
However, the orchardists declared
and introduced a great mass of cvi-
dence to maintain their claims, that
every acre of their respective tracts
Ceight tracts of 10 acres of orchard
each) would be damaged more or
less by seepage as a result OF the
canal being put through their lands.
The defendants and their attorneys
maintained that below the ditch the
Vineland orchards would be disas-
trously damaged and above the ditch
they would be damaged but not so
seriously. Therefore the orchardists
demanded from the Orchard Mesa
district damages for every acre of
their lands. Consequently it can be
seen that the item of damage, instead
of being confined To the land actually
occupied by the right of way, is Of
big proportions. The defendants also
claimed that the right of way of the
ditch make necessary for them to
reconstruct thJ:r own irrigation
bitches, move buildings In some cases
and be put to other inconvenience
for which they wanted damages.
When the witnesses for the or
chardists themselves had presented
their testimony IL was found that the
total estimate of damages claimed to
be due TO the seven orchardists varied
from $3.50 to S15O,OOO.
On the other hand the Orchard
Mesa district maintained that the
damage from seepage would not be
anywhere near as large as the or
,chardists claimed. nor would the dam
age Tor any cause be as high as the
orchardists claimed.
Witnesses for the Orchard Mesa
district estimated the total damages
from all causes TO be not over SS0,-
600.
Besides the defendants themselves
+ numerous orchardists, including
Messrs. oliver, Bancroft. Baisch and
others, testified as to the land values
and their testimony was favorable to
the claims of the defendant orchard
| lists.
| The testimony throughout was at
! interesting as II was extensive. The
attorneys for the orchardists intro
duced photos taken last spring and
fall showing the fine condition of The
young orchards.
1t was shown that orchards in tbs
| Vinelands have sold for $4,000 al
acre or more.
4 1t Is interesting to note the figure!
presented showing the average dam
age. as compiled and computed from
the figures given by the various wit
nesses for the orchardists and the
orchardists themselves accruing Il
each of the orchard tracts.
The total average damage as shown
by the average Testimony of the wit.
nesses for the side of the defense
Isl 10. hnv to, ha
eight tracts of S102,0OO and this
amount the defendants think they
should be paid.
The average damage estimated for
leach of the tracts is as follows:
L. b. Hiatt. 1c acre tract -
| Value of land taken 5 l,Sl250
Damage to rest of land. l5,077.5O
C. l.. King, 90 acre tract)-
Value of land taken IS 49150
Damage to rest of land. 1,S46.35
C. L. King, Csecond 10 acres)-
Value of land taken. 5 2,312.00
Damage to rest of land. l3,993.65
w e. Larson. 90 acre tract)-
Value of land taken. 5 2,915.40
Damage to rest of land 14,16S.25
E. E. Bailey, 90 acre tracD--
Value of land taken. 8 2.536.OO
Damage OF rest of land 12,1S6.25
Elmer Hiatt. 40 acre tracD-
Value of land taken. 8 1.7O4.55
Damage to rest of land. 2.995.5O
J. A. Clark, t10 acre tract)-
Value of land taken. IS 2.33S.3O
Damage to rest of land. l5,61965
w. II. Tannehill, 10 acre tract) -
Value of land taken. 8 $4,000
Damage to rest of land. l4.074. 90
The Vineland orchardists do not
depend on the Orchard Mesa district
for their water They already have
their water from their own district.
The Orchard Mesa ditch will not
give them service.
In many respects the hearing in
this important case resembles the
hearing In Grand Junction condcm-
nation suits against the Hannah creek
water owners. However in the Kan
nah creek case the water was beng
taken and the value of the water and