Lincoln County times. (Jerome, Idaho) 1911-1919, 1913-10-23

BAKER WINS.
Judge Walters Opinion on Some Of
the Clauses in the Contract.

last week, resulted in verdict for
Baker in the sum Of 81 ,SS9 90 and |
costs Of the suit. A peculiar fea-
ture of this case was the fact that |
the company, the day previous to |
the trial, offered Baker $500 in set
Element of his claim. After some
hesitation Baker concluded to ac-
cept this offer, when to his surprise
as we'll as the attorneys in the case,
the company receded from their
offer and the case was tried on its
merits with the result az stated
above.
Judge Walters in his instructions
10 the jury in the Collins case made
50 plain his Interpretation of some
of the clauses Of the contract that
we give space to them as follows
Judge Walters said:
You are instructed that under the
contract between the plaintiff and
the defednant II was the duty OF the
defendant to SO construct its canals
laterals and bitches that water would
be available to the plaintiff at q
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
merely to bring water within the half
mile limit. but the canals. laterals
and bitches must be so constructed
that at the point where the water
Is to be taken by the settler 1t must
be at such level as to make it prac-
ticeable for him TO obtain IT,
You are further instructed that II
in order to make water available foI
a settler within the half mile limit
It is necessary to raise the level ol
the water In the company's canals
laterals. coulees or bitches. ii is thu
duty OF the company to do so by con
devices as would be appropriate 70
that purpose, and under such condi
tions II Is not the duty OF the set
tier to enter upon the canals, lateral
or coulees OF the company or Il
place any checks. dams or other oh
structions therein. except head
gate through which the water ma
pass into his ditch.
You are further instructed that
the company. at the request OF IN
settler. designated a certain poin
on It's canal system within the hal
mile limit as point where waite
would be available for the settle
and n the settler. pursuant OF sue
designation, constructs proper ditche
suitable and sufficient TO conduct h
water from said point TO his lands
then becomes the duty OF the con
pany to construct such checks
dams as may he necessary, II al
are in fact necessary. to make wat'
available to the settler at the poll
so designated.
You are further instructed th'
II you find from the evidence ar
In accordance with these instruction
that the defendant at the instance
the plaintiff designated a point up'
Its system at which water won
be available for the plaintiff al
II you further find from the eviden
that the plaintiff duly performed !
part by the proper construction
suitable and sufficient ditches frC
said point to his lands, then and
that event II was the duty OF the
fendent to make water availaoie
the plaintiff at the point so des
mated, and n you further find fr'
the evidence that the defendant fa
ed to perform its duty in TINS resa
and that by reason thereof the pia
tiff was deprived of the use
water to which he was entitled a
suffered damage on account there
then and in that event you Will Il
for the plaintiff in the amount OF 81
damages in accordance with the
structions herewith given you.
You are further instructed {
after the defendant gave 10
plaintiff notice that water woulo
available on the first day OF Ap
1909, for the irrigation OF plah''
lands. It was the duty OF the ueie
ant to supply the plaintiff with
the water to which he was en'''
not only during the irrigation
son OF 1909. but also thereafter
long as the defendant retained
troll of the North Side Canai G.
pany. Ltd, and It admitted py
pleadings that such control contin
during each of the years isos
1910 embraced in this action.