Show I i OGDEN lO LOSES ES A SUIT Must Pa on Contract JE S VW GIVES GIS F AMOUNT O OI I DEMANDED D I TE TEI Holds Hold That Tt Even Eve If I Former Fore Council Had Ead o Right Bight to t Make Mae Contract Complained of It Would Constitute Co tate tute tte No Defense to Tills This Action Net Act Ac By Dy Ordinance t The Te suit sui of William C C Weaver Weer TS vs TSO O Ogden den city which has been ben pending for some time the decision of ot the fed ted federal eral eil court court was brought to a a conclusion don sion yesterday esterday In favor of ot the plaintiff and the full ful amount asked 1133 and interest thereon thern at 8 S per pr cent per annum since the date of its It beginning benning was allowed The controversy was the te result rul of o a contract which was wa let to John R B Bothwell Aug 6 by the Ogden Ogen City council By it i Bothwell or his bis assigns were pledged pledge to divert the wa waters water tens ter of Bear river and by a system of canals distribute them in such a way that the arid lands In North Korth Ogden could auld be irrigated to t supply and an put In place as s many fire fre hydrants hYdrant as the city cl might require to sell sl this system 1 I of canals canai cna and waterworks to the city when desired desire by the city at the fol foi lowing lown terms One hundred and fifty thousand dollars doUar for the conduit in canyon and the district tern tem tm at cost COSt and ad to furnish to the city cay free tree water for tr public buildings schools public grounds fountains troughs toughs etc etc All AU this he agreed to do In one year yea and anti in consideration the city was wa to allow alow him the te use of its is streets for laying pipes to furnish water ater to Its is in habitants and leased him its water right at at 1 la a year yer The city also aso agreed aged to pay pa for forthe the use of each hydrant in installed stalled the first at 75 15 and after that tat number f 60 apiece Bothwell assigned to a corporation which constructed the system syte as a con cn agreement for five years yea when for tor the t e for five years when for the following fO lg reasons r ons the council thought It was not nol compelled to pay for the theater water ater though it continued to use ue it i I and so discontinued payments They said the contract was void be because berut because cause rut the council had no light right to lease leas the peoples water right right which was im impressed impressed pressed as a a public trust they al already already ready rady had a system and bad had no right to abandon it I and an even if jf they had I possessed pos essed the tM power they should have acted on it by ordinance instead of res resolution resolution as they did reI Judge Marshall Mashal however held that tat even een if the council counci did diu di not nt have the right to lease leas out the water right the I fact furnished no defense in ia the ac action tion and ad said sid that in his opinion it i had the power to have new water waterworks waterworks I works work constructed He lie also held that the council counci need ned not act act by ordinance under uder Its charter I |