The Glenwood post., 1923-07-26

Within the past week Judge Shu-
mate of the district court has heard
irrigation suits of more than little
Importance, issuing injunctive wrlts in
both cases, and thus tieing matters up
until final hearings can be had, and
cases definitely disposed of.
The first is a case of great magni-
tude, involving the operation of the
Divide creek Highline canal, being
protest on the part of some of the
stockholders against the methods pur-
sued by the board of directors in the
administration of the ditch, the dis
tribution of water therefrom, and the
distribution of the upkeep expense to
the various shareholders.
The title of the case is +. F. Park,
for himself and all others similarly
situated, versus VIM. Flynn, George
T. Frost and Charles w. Banta as the
board of directors of the Divide creek
Highline Ditch company, G. P. Sewers
as secretary, VIM. Flynn as president
and Arthur Maday as superintendent
of said company.
For the past several years there has
been more or less of internal dissension
i'll this company concerning the manner
N which the affairs of the company
had been managed in the past, and
especially on the upper and lower
taln ,of @1,a OLE
manner of parceling the expense nee
essary in the operation and mainte-
nance of the ditch, this dissatisfaction
growing out of feeling among the
lower owners that they were not re-
ceiving their proper proportion of wa
ter, being penalized for their location,
through evaporation and seepage, and
also being required to pay an unjust
amount for operating expenses.
At meeting of the stockholders of
the company OH March 3, 1928, F. F.
Park appeared in behalf of his own
interests and representing stock to the
amount of 1l9H shares, declined to
participate in the meeting, but filed
written protest against the passage or
adoption of any bylaws which would
in any manner tend to deprive the pro-
testants of any portion of the water
they had heretofore received, or which
would in any manner increase the
amount Of work, expense or assess
ment for upkeep, maintenance or re-
pairs of the ditch from headgate to
end, or for any greater portion than
from the headgate to the point where
said protesting stockholders take their
water from said ditch.
In the hearing last Friday and Sat
urday Frank Delaney and G. W. Oar
row appeared for the plaintiffs, and
Noonan 4 Noonhn and Taylor & Tay.
lor represented the defendants. Much
evidence was taken, principally con-
cerning the organization of the COM
pany and the adoption of the original
bylaws and also concerning the regu-
larity of the meeting held last March,
and the business transacted at that
meeting, and especially the adoption
of new bylaws, by which plaintiffs
claim that they are taxed unreasona-
bly, for expense of operation, repair
and upkeep below their diversion
boxes.
The question as to whether the COM
pany in question is mutual ditch
company within the designation of the
statute, was decided in the affirma.
tive by Judge Shumate.
After listening to a great deal Of
evidence and much heavy argument ON
both sides, Judge Shumate issued an
order to the effect that, upon the
filing Of bond by the plaintiffs, the
defendants be restrained and enjoined
from enforcing any one or more Of the
so-called new bylaws, claimed to