The Twin Falls times. [volume] (Twin Falls, Idaho) 1905-1916, 1913-10-28
NORTH SIDE SETTLERS WIN
kuhns Held Liable For Crop Failures
in 1909 and 1910.

| III 1OVO 0uV 1O1Vs
The settlers have, as the Leader
goes to press, won all of their suits
against the Twin Falls North Side
Land and Water company, the verdicts
in all of the cases tried being substan-
tial ones.
In the first case, that of Dolin Col
Inns, of Jerome, news of which the
Leader carried up to the hour of go
ing to press, the jury rendered a YER
dict of $4,000 in favor of the plaintiff.
The William Thompson case, from
the Shoestring neighborhood, was the
next tried, and the jury returned a
verdict of $3.50.
The Ray G.. Baker case from near
Jerome was the third to be tried, and
Thursday evening this case went to
the jury, while Friday morning the
sealed verdict was read in court,
awarding damages to the plaintiff in
the sum of $1,SS9. AS the Leader goes
to press the jury is being chosen for
the Yevissy case from the Wendell
neighborhood.
In the Collins case the instructions
which District Judge Walters gave to
the jury state for the first time the
law constituting the contractural rela-
tons between the settler and the COM
pany.
For this reason, and because of the
widespread interest manifest in these
cases, the Leader prints in full those
parts of the instructions which treat
of this matter.
Judge Walters said:
You are instructed that under the
contract between the plaintiff and the
defendant it was the duty of the de-
PENDANT to so construct it's canals, la
terals and bitches that water would
be available to the plaintiff at point
not exceeding one-half mile from the
quarter section in which plaintiffs
lands were situated
You are further instructed that it is
not sufficient for the company mere
ly to bring water within the half-mile
limit, but the canals, laterals and
bitches must me so constructed that
at the point where the water is to be
taken by the settler it must be at such
a level as to make it practicable for
him to obtain it.
You are further instructed that if in
order to make water available for a
settler within the half-mile limit it is
necessary to raise the level of the wa
ter in the company's canals, laterals,
coulees or bitches, it is the duty of
the company to do so by constructing
checks, dams or such other devices as
would be appropriate for that purpose,
and under such conditions it is not the
duty of the settler to enter upon the
canals, laterals or coulees of the COM
pany or to place any checks, dams or
other distractions therein, except a
headgate through which the water
may pass into his ditch
| You are further instructed that if
! the company, at the request of the set
tier, designated a certain point on its
canal system within the half mile lin
1t as point where water would be
available for the settler, and if the set
tier, pursuant of such designation.
constructs proper bitches suitable
and sufficient to conduct his water
from said point to his lands, it then
becames the duty of the company to
construct such checks or dams as may
be necessary, if any are in fact neces-
sary, to make water available to the
settler at the point so designated.
You are further instructed that if
you find from the evidence and in ac-
cordance with these instructions that
the defendant at the instance of the
plaintiff designated point upon it's
system at which water would be avail
able for the plaintiff and if you fur
Their find from the evidence that the
plaintiff duly performed his part by
the proper construction of suitable
and sufficient bitches from said point
to his lands, then and in that event
it was the duty of the defendant to
| loh1 e., ..1o &c
at the point so designated, and if you
further find from the evidence that
the defendant failed to perform it's
duty in this regard and that by reason
thereof the plaintiff was deprived of
the use of water to which he was en-
| titled and suffered damage on account
thereof, then and in that event you
will find for the plaintiff in the
amount of such damages in accord
ance with the instructions herewith
given you
You are further instructed that af-
ter the defendant gave to the plaintiff
notice that water would be available
on the first day of April, 1909, for the
irrigation of plaintiffs lands, it was
the duty of the defendant to supply
the plaintiff with the water to which |
he was entitled, not only during the |
irrigation season of 1909, but also |
thereafter as long as the defendant
retained control of the North Side
Canal company, Ltd, and it admitted |
by the pleadings that such control
continued during each of the years
1909 and 1910 embraced in this action.
You are further instructed that the
defendant could not and did not re-
lieve itself of it's obligation to the
plaintiff by turning the irrigation
system over to the operating company,
known as the North Side Canal com
pany, Ltd, in the spring of 1910, but
that the defendants liability continues
so long as under its contract it retains
control of the said North Side Canal
Ltd.
You are further instructed that the
plaintiff was under no obligation to
pay for or contribute to any part of
any ditch or lateral which oytandod