White Bluffs spokesman. [volume] (White Bluffs, Wash.) 1907-1938, 1931-12-03
Auard-Vernita
The California Of the Northwest

The Pot-Luck party given by the
community at the school house Satur-
day evening was well attended and
everybody had most enjoyable time.
Pinochle, bridge and dancing were the
chief entertainments. Archie Borden
rendered several songs which were re-
ceived with glad hand. Winners OF
the highest bridge scores were Mrs.
o. w. Brown and Levi Austin.
John Grom was in Yakima Monday,
Mrs. Leo Beiren accompanying him on
shopping tour.
Mrs. Gabriel Jadden returned from
the Coast Monday morning after a
ten days visit there with relatives and
friends.
Mr.. and Mrs. Paul Bruggemann en-
tertained at their home on Riverland
Rancho, Thanksgiving Day, their guests
being Mr. and Mrs. Emil Allwardt and
Mr.. and Mrs. ]. H. Allwardt of Mckee;
Ted Allwardt and Miss Alice Holmes
OF Yakima; Miss Johanna Allwardt
Of Edmonds, and Mrs. Anna Jaeger
and Miss Marguerite Jaeger of YER
nita
Judge and Mrs. j. G. Lloyd of White
Bluffs and Mr.. and Mrs. E. P. Knaub
of Vernita were guests of Miss Anna
R. Knaub at Juniper Springs Ranch
for Thanksgiving.
Mr.. and Mrs. Levi Austin and chill
dren, Bud and Betty of Centerville,
were at Alfalfa Ridge Rancho for
Thanksgiving, returning home Sunday.
E. B. Johnson was the guest of. his
son, at Port Angeles, for Thanksgiv
ing, Mrs. Johnson and Mr.. and Mrs.
Jay Austin of st. Helens. Oregon, al
so being there.
Mrs. Levi Austin and daughter
Betty were dinner guests of Miss Anna
r. Knaub Friday.
John Beiren of Grandview arrived
at Aalfalfa Ridge Rancho Friday to
assist his son Leo in the development
of his ranch.
Mrs. Sheehan and Mrs. Godfrey of
Seattle drove over Thursday to the
Fry ranch, to be guests of Mr.. and
Mrs. F. L. Conforth for a few days.
Floyd F. Howard arrived Tuesday
from Washtucna
Miss Anna r. Knaub, Miss Mar
guerite Knaub and Mr.. and Mrs. E.
P. Knaub were shopping in Yakima
Monday.
Mr.. and Mrs. o. w. Brown we're
dinner guests at the Fry ranch
Day.
ton district, it's successors or assigns
against any of the appellants.
80. It is further represented and
agreed by respondents that the max
ing of this settlement, and the exc
cution of this settlement stipulation
and agreement, and the exclusion from
said irrigation district of said lands
hereinabove described of the appel
lants herein, have been fully author
lied, ordered directed and approved
by unanimous vote of the Board Of
Directors of said Priest Rapids Irriga-
ton District.
40. 1t is further stipulated and
agreed that this stipulation and agree
ment shall inure to the benefit of,
and shall be binding upon the sue
cessors, assigns, heirs, executors, adj
and representatives of
each of the parties herein"
(Section II outlines the manner in
which the agreement shall be filed
in the Superior and Supreme courts).
AS the law prohibits an irrigation
district from delivering water or power
outside of it's boundaries if the services
are needed within the district, the pro-
posal could not be considered. To ac-
cept it would mean entering into a
voluntary illegal contract covering
questions that are not at all at issue
in the case.
It is claimed by some that if the
district cannot legally deliver water
and power outside it's boundaries this
same law would prohibit the district
from taking over the instrumentalities
and delivering water to other than
the water right land as described in
the so-called Adamson case.
Attorneys, however, familiar with
the receivership proceedings, all agree
that the two cases are not parallel.
In the Adamson case the obligation
to deliver water in accordance with
the contracts and deeds is burden
attached to the properties when they
are acquired by the district and the
properties must respond to this obli-
cation, if purchased under PROPOSE
ton One whether they be operated by
an irrigation district or a private cor
poration.
Appellants have until the last OF
this week to complete their appeal
and the district 30 days in which to re-
ply. This should put the case on the
Supreme Court calander in the fore
part of January. AS the case now
stands the only relief the appellants
could reasonably expect if they are
successful in the Supreme Court, would