Show BETWEEN THE WATER ERS OF THEN COUNTY legal battle for the control of the waters of ogden river Is being fought from wednesdays standard in the second district court today judge fritchle of the third district court of salt lake Is hearing arguments atthe attorneys in the contempt of court proceedings that have bon brought jn the case of the north ogden irrigation company vs george A fuller t al there are two contempt of court proceedings ce pending one brought by nathaniel montgomery president of the north ogden irrigation company against george A fuller et al which h based on the alleged violation of an injunction granted august 1 by judge J A howell in the second district court and another contempt proceeding brought by william geddes for the alleged violation of an injunction granted september 10 1892 in tho same court in an action in which george A fuller was the plaintiff and william geddes was the defendant from the convening of court until he noon adjournment there was a egal battle between the attorneys for the plaintiffs and defendants over technicalities relating to issuance of the citation and the action under which the contempt proceedings were brought on motion of attorneys for the defendants the action brought by william geddis was first taken under consideration it was the contention of the attorneys tor the defendants that the north ogden irrigation company mentioned in the action brought by gaddes was not the same north ogden irrigation company mentioned in the first case and that the former company had ceased to exist their charter having become invalid and that consequently there could be no action brought in the bams of the present north ogden irrigation company previous to the existence of that company it seems that on april 23 1900 the old north ogden irrigation company ceased to exist and the present north ogden company acquired the interests and property of the former company the injunction granted in 1892 fras in favor of tha old company and as that com had ceased 0 exist the attorneys claim that any injunction granted in their favor Is in vald in opposition to this argument the attorneys for the plaintiffs claim that the interests of the old company were transferred to the present company and that the present company Is entitled to the rulings anade in favor of the old company 15 support of this contention they placed in evidence the quit claim given by the old company to the naw company when the contempt cage brought by geddes against george A fuller et al ft as called C C richards one of the attorneys tor the defendants offered a motion that the action be dismissed on the grounds that ast 1st the said warrant or citation did not state what acts were committed commit led that were in violation of the injunction granted and 2nd that said warrant or citation was made returnable on a day and date bhea the court named stood adjourned ard 3rd that no judge was named to hold the said court ath that the hon M L ritchie who made and issued the warrant and citation had no power or jurisdiction in the case ath that the north ogden irrigation company named had ceased to exist ath that it did not appear that the party in whose behalf tho warrant or citation was made was the same party 0 o the action of he old north ogden irrigation company for the plaintiffs judge bagley argued against the granting of the mo ion and stated there would be placed n evidence a quit claim deed given by tha old company to the new company which covered the grounds on which ae attorneys for the defendants based their motion for dismissal in handing down his decision on the motion judge ritchie overruled the motion on the first and second clauses deferred action off the third clauce of the motion and took the other clauses under advisement until the attorneys or the plaintiffs had introduced evidence in support of their objection to the granting of the motion the court stated that it that the action was simply one to show cause why the defendants were not in contempt of court and that as no arrests had been made ac believed that bis understanding was correct attorneys for the plaintiffs then of cred in evidence the quit claim given by the old north ogden irrigation company to the new north ogden irrl gation company and placed on the stand the officers of the present company who frere also the of the old company to testify to the transfer J N kimbach of counsel for the defendants fend ants objected to this line of tes te s being introduced and the objection was sustained the judge stating hoy eief that it would bs abble tor the attorneys for the plaintiffs to go before a notary and swear to the validity of the quit claim provided they also introduced in evidence the resolution of the board of directors of the old company authorizing tha sale of the old fioro pany to the new company after the examination of the officers of the north ogden irrigation company who simply swore to their having been instrumental in the transfer of the old company to the new the attorneys for the plaintiffs aked that a recess be taken in order to send for taft resolutions of 0 board 01 directors of the old company jwelch were at north ogden the recess was not granted but the first action was laid over and the judge announced that he was ready to hear motions of ahe counsel in relation to the second action of the contempt proceedings the attorneys for the defendants made the same motion in the second action as in the farst and the case was still being argued when court adjourned for the noon recess nathaniel montgomery president of the north ogden irrigation company is on aba witness stand this afternoon and Is being questioned by judge ma up to time the lawyers for the defendant were trying to have ruled out the question asked by audgo gagianis Ga ginnis as to alic number of canals south of the north ogden irrigating a right ivr north wag trying to prove 1 not enough water in apply thosa canals with a prior judge lutchko did not overrule objection the wafer commissioner will be afie ctet |