The Eureka sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1902-current, 1921-12-17
Ila CASE DECISION
-. Rendered In Favor of
u,rcos Legarra In White
Pine Suit

:. ?. smith AGAINST the Marcos
,.rrs Company. brought on .
- Ct contract and to recover
...rss claimed as the result OF such
,,.,,A. the decision is In favor of de-
hsisnt.
Attorney J. M. Lockhart Of Ely ap-
,..,d for the plaintiff. and attorneys
pruoids & Father of Eureka for de-
tlndant
FINN the estimony introduced at
AZ trial It appeared that Mrs. Smith.
vho d the owner of ranch at Straw
huy, leased to the Legarra sheep
pupany q right to water sheep on
rrtan springs located near the sum-
N Of The Diamond range OF noun
sIns, east Of the Smith ranch. The
Jss designated by boundaries . rec
.,sular section of land. of which tho
vstsrn boundary Was marked by q
line Of stakes which Indicated certain
prinss and watercourses, below
Which the lessor claimed that the
.A~p Of the lessee should not be al
bvsd to water.
From the testimony of Miss Win
lfrsd Smith. daughter of the plain
d. 1t appeared that the sherders of
he Legarra company had allowed the
sAeep to range and water below the
stake line. causing damage to the
prngs and bitches. which required
considerable work and expense to
plaintiff to restore them to such con-
dition as would permit the water to
tov to the ranch for the irrigation of
|rups.
Mrs. W. H. Hooper. another daugh-
Ter Of the plaintiff, testified that she
md her sister. Miss winifred. super
rised the work of the ranch and did
most Of the riding required in the
are OF the cattle owned by their
rother. She told of the cattle being
breed to leave the regular range by
as inroads of the sheep. and that
'Aa cattle for this reason would not
ned on the range but wandered down
% the nat. She also told of the dam
ge to the water bitches by the sheep
md hat the herders would not keep
DE sheep above the stake line.
Marcos Legarra in testifying in his
'sn defense declared that he had no
n0Wledge OF his sheep causing dam
'ss TO the water bitches and that on
DO complaint OF the people at the |
amen had moved HIS sheep out OF the
strict.
Inc argument OF counsel for the
'alntin declared that the defendant
40 broken his contract by permit
As MS sheep to go below the stake
ae and damaging the water bitches
piaintin, as well as causing dam
~ 70 the growing crops of plaintiff
cutting on the supply of water for
rsation, owing to the trampling of
% springs and breaking of bitches
the sheep.
A''orney Reynolds for the defend
i company contended that the de-
Aaant mad right under the con-
''' 70 permit his sheep to follow
Satercourses of the springs un-
'ease' even IL the sheep did go
i0w the stake line, which he did
aamit. He claimed that the land
which the lease was located was
'"e domain and that nothing In
: contract could prohibit the de-
'aant from grazing HIS sheep on
3 land.
iae following is taken from the
mon Just rendered in this case by
ase McFadden:
careful examination of the COM
'a' herein seems to the Court to
s'0se the fact that the action is
'ssn' Tor trespass on the Main
= ana Canyon Five or Smith
e' IN Canyon Five and also Wa [
'A canyon Springs. all of which
20 or water rights are alleged to ,
~ property of the plaintiff.
as only question that the Court I
- 70 nave to meet is whether or I
person having leased water I
- can erect line or flag line on {
s4onc domain and limit the lessee c
.'''ain places on said public do d
wherein they are forbidden from I
'''ins any act OF trespass. ID
.as oeen decided in our Supreme t
'nat you cannot collect a graz
~ Tor sheep on the public do G
q.
- an examination of all of the q
'ues cited in the brief leads me I
y conclusion that the lease is con- G