Show BANKER VHIIMORESiCA E j < eo Ii Contention Over the Waters of Grassy Trail Creek THE COURTS WATER 130X It Didnt Work to Snit Trkitmore and lIe Tore It Out Uc Is Now Charged With Contempt of Court Proceedings Before Bartclx and Zane The Hurt Baby Case Court 2iotes Yesterday was a typical business day in the Third district court and there were over fifty members of the Salt Lake bar present when Doc Spragues voice proclaimed the court in session The legal light3 tumbled over each other in the usual free and easy manner until a number of short orders had been disposed of when more substantial matters were taken up The first matter of importance called up was the contempt proceedings against George C Whitmore the Nephi banker Brown Henderson for the defendant suggested that it go before Judge Bartcc for apparent reasons After some argument for and against the disqualification disqualifi-cation of judges in the supreme court by virtue ot hearings in the trial court Judge Zane stated that he thought it best to allow the matter to be transferred to Judge Bartch and the attorneys retired to the other room where the latter awaited await-ed them Upon arrival there Judge Henderson stated that Mr Brown was detained in LI the other court but that he would go after him Zane No he isnt in court at all he has gone up to the club to get a drink Well Ill go and look for him any wav said the judge with an injured look but as he started out he met his partner at the door > After some further delay Judge Bartch ordered the hearing to proceed HISTORY OF THE CASE The facts in brief are substantially as X follows Some time ago L A Scott Elliott brought suit against Ge irge C Whitmore et al and in the course of time the matter was referred to J H Harris as referee to try andreport findings and decree The question involved was the rights of the respective parties to theaters the-aters of Grassy Trail creek The referee knd that the defendants were entitlodto b vsevenone hundred and fiftieths of a cubic foot of water per second and the plaintiff to the balance This finding was confirmed by Jude Zane and later W P Hardesty was appointed by the court as a commissioner to take 11 j charge ol the matter and construct a measuring box which would apportion the waters of the creek according to the terms of the decree Mr Hardesty did as directed and whitewinged peace rested over the scene until June 11 when according ac-cording to affidavit filed by Mr Elliott which caused the defendants arrest on the charge of contempt Mr Whitmore tore out portions of the measuriag box I amid since that time has diverted almost the entire volume of water to his own use much to the detriment of the plaintiff The matter was called up on June 17 at which time the defendant answered the affidavit of the plaintiff by denying that the Third district court had ever procured jurisdiction of the cause or that the plaintiff had been deprived of any of his rights under the terms of the alleged decree It was further alleged that the box put in by the commissioner of the court was not such a one as the decree de-cree provided for inasmuch as it gave plaintiff eleven cubic feet of water per I second instead of five cubic feet per second I sec-ond as required by the decree also that the plaintiff was still getting the full amount of water to which he was entitled I The bearing was then continued until yesterday THE CASE PROCEEDS When Judge Bartch announced that he was ready to proceed John M Zae made a statement of the case substantially as above recited and read the report of the Water commissioner relative to the construction con-struction of the measuring box and the accuracy of the apportionment of the water as between the interested parties Mr Zane also stated that Whitmore had again visited the measuring box since he was arrested last week and completely demolished it I i HARDESTY MADE THE BOX I W P Hardisty the commissioner of the court was the first witness called for the plaintiff His report submitted to the court subsequent to his construction of the measuring box was offered in evidence evi-dence and objected to by the defense but was admitted subject to the objection in order to save imc Similar action was also taken as to the oral testimony inre lation to the commissioners actions Arthur Brown crossexamined Mr Hardesty and began by asking him why he constructed the measuring box over 200 feet down the defendants ditch and the witness replied that he did so to save the expense of building a new dam A model of the measuring box was also in evidence and Mr Brown asked Har desty when he first saw the model HI dont remember 11 replied the witness Didnt you first see it in Zane Put r nams office J c I dont remember I Didnt you see it in Zane Putnams office before yon were appointed by the court ZaneHe wasnt in our office at all 1 BrownWell if you were under oath somebody might believe yon Mr Brown then put his original question ques-tion and Mr Hardesty stated that he had If seen the model in Zane Putnams office j after his appointment i r Then followed the usual run of ques r tions and after Brown had pumped the witness D J Simpson foreman of I the plaintiffsranch was called He testified on direct examination that he discovered the mutilation of the measuring boxon June 11 and four days later fo hd that the ehtirebox had been torn out After the witness had been crossexamined Judge Bartch announced that the hearing would have to be post poned until Monday morning and court was according adjourned until that time |