The Eureka sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1902-current, 1921-04-30
WATER CASE DECISION
Nick Ratio Given Judgment BY
District Court For Waters
of Water Canyon

a, the case OF Nick Ratio against
w,,liam Laird. This action was
brought, upon the part Of the plaint-
~ to quiet title to eight-tenths cubic
,.s. of water of what Is known as
Water Canyon.
An advisory jury was empaneled
40 assist the court In the trial OF the
s.,d cause, and the following verdict
vas found and returned to the court:
I'VE, the jury In the above entitled
..use find that William Laird, de-
tsndant, is entitled to the first right
and entire now. With remarks be-
,ov included, of the water Of that GER
tain canyon, known as Water Can
Won. set forth In the complaint In said
action.
"June gath, 1920.
Remarks. to-wit: And after the
land under fence and present cultiva-
tion have been irrigated and used
carefully and economically. to turn
peacefully all waters into Nick Ratios
ditch leading to reservoir.
"E. ]. ANDERSON, Foreman Of
the Jury"
The Jury declined to allow dam
uss to either party to the action.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
II seems to me from the allega-
tons In defendants answer. that IL
any person outside of plaintiff has
any claim to the ownership Of the
water In question, 1t would be the
Newark Milling & Mining Company.
which company, defendant alleges
more than once in his pleadings, was
and Is the paramount owner, not only
Of the lands claimed to be irrigated
by defendant, but to the water of the
creek In question.
The only title of defendant. as set
forth In his answer, and as shown
emphatically by the evidence In the
case. Is that of a mere person In oc-
cupancy or possession Of the lands
that 1t is claimed by him belongs to
the Newark Milling & Mining Com
pany, and of the waters of the creek
above named.
Whilst, on the other hand, the
plaintiff In the action obtained from
the State Engineer of this State, and
under the laws of this State. several
years ago, to-wit, In September, 1916,
right to the use of 8 cubic feet per
second of the waters of said creek,
which said s cubic feet is practically
all of said water of said creek.
The applications of plaintiff to the
State Engineer for the waters In ques-
tion. 1t is acknowledged by defend
ants attorneys, were made as pro-
vfded by law, without any protest or
objection having been raised to the
applications by the defendant. or any
agent of defendant. or by the Newark
Milling & Mining Company. or any
agent Of said company.
II then the water law of this State
In regard to requirements of title to
waters of the kind in question be of
any validity. 1t is as clear as 1t can
possibly be that the plaintiff acquired
that title.
Nor Is 1t clear to me, nor can un-
derstand, how a man in the mere oc-
cupancy or possession of the land and
water of the foregoing kind, could ac-
Quire title to the same. when 1t Ia
remembered that defendant set forth
In his answer, as well as in the evi-
oence at the trial of the case, that the
real owner of the lands and water
rested In the Newark Milling & Min
ing Company, the defendants alleged
predecessor in interest"
There was no pretense at the trial
that the Newark Mining & Milling
Company ever conveyed to the de-
iendant any right or title to the land
or water, either by deed OF convey
ance, by tenancy, by license, or in
any other way or method known to
the law.
During the progress of the trial, II
seemed to me. that. IL any valid claim
existed to the waters of Water Can
yon Creek. 1t could only exist in the
corporation. but as that corporation
aid not appear in the case, and in no
way expressed a desire to so appear.
ana failed to protest against the ap-
phcations for the water made by
plaintiff Ratio. 1t cannot be consid-
ered as having any rights herein, at
ieast In the present suit.
1t is claimed by defendants coun-
SCI that under the application for the
asss permit mo. plaintiff could
only be entitled to the waste waters