Imperial Valley press., 1933-01-28
GRANTS
NON-SU|T FOR
DISTRICT CASE
Legality Of Water Toll Upheld
By Courts Action In West
morland's Care.
MALAN SUIT CONTINUED
Will Be Consolidated With Dis
trict's Own Action To Have
Canal Contract Validated.

Heated debates in superior court
this morning brought a sweeping
victory to the Imperial Irrigation
District in one case and saw the
district winner of a preliminary
skirmish in another which was
aimed at the All-American canal
contract.
A suit pending for almost year
literally was thrown out of court
when Judge E. H. Wilson of Los
Angeles granted the motion of
Charles L. Childers, chief counsel
for the district, for non suit This
was the action brought by Roy
Westmorland and group of pro-
perty owners to test the legality of
the water toll inaugurated last
year.
An effort to prevent any expen-
diture of money in furtherance of
the All-American canal contract
was blocked temporarily when M.
w. Conkling, attorney for Charles
Malan, and ChilderS, for the dis
trict, together with A. B. Shaw, Jr.,
attorney for the Coachella Valley
County Water District agreed to
set over Malan's case to March 6,
| when it will be consolidated for
| hearing with the districts action
to validate the contract.
BY virtue of the agreement, no
restraining order was issued Dis
trict officials may proceed with
any necessary action to further the
contract without being hampered
| by a court order that they refrain
from expending any money for the
purpose.
Since both Malans suit and the
routine suit filed by the district
against "all persons" have to do
with the validity of the contract,
| these action will be heard at the
same time.
Conkling, speaking of the agree
ment this morning, declared that
his clients don't want to impede
(the contract) but do want to pre-
vent expenditures of public money
/ in lobbying" He further said there
| will be no objection if Childers
wishes to go to Sacramento and
Washington on behalf of the con-
tract, but any employment of lob
byists will be objected to-
Judgment Tseiased
| Conkling appeared, not only as
attorney for Malan, but as attor-
ney fer Roy Westmorland and the
| group of property owners associat-
ed with him in the suit to test the
legality of the water toll levied by
the district board of directors last
| March 16.
Since the water toll has become
a dead issue, the plaintiffs had fill
ed an amendment complaint ask
ing declaratory Judgment that
the toll was improper and illegal,
and requiring revision of district
assessment rolls in accordance
with such finding.
Harry Stewart, one of the plain
tiffs, had been called to the witness
stand to testify. Gle question was
put to him by Conkling. Childers
objected to introduction of any
evidence. The argument that fol-
lowed, brought out all phases of the
case, finally resulting in an or
| der by Judge Wilson sustaining the
objection. Childers moved for nom
suit, and the motion was granted.
Judge Wilson held that declar-
| atory judgment such as was asked
in the amended complaint would
not be proper in such case. Since
the passage of time has settled
other matters with which the suit
dealt, this decision left nothing be-
| fore the court.
Conkling contended that the wa
ter toll was illegal under two reso-
lutions adopted by the district di-
rectors because it made the toll ap-
plicable only to those who failed
to pay their taxes. Payment of the
toll was credited on the assessments
of those who were not delinquent.
Childers argued that declara-
tory Judgment such as was asked
by the plaintiffs could help no one
and would result only in great con-
fusion if the district should be
forced to change its assessment