Show Bonneville Case Heard I Sat May l goTo go goTo To Supreme Court As i result of court maneu maneu els Saturday in 10 the district court at lon the suit brought brou ht by Wilham lam hanI II H Argyle nd J seventy two ethelS ethel'S ag aJi directors of the lion Bon nevI neville lie Irrigation district and vii 1 IOUS bus taxing taJ m officials official's of our county rs IS expected to go o to the Utah supreme court Final decision the case cull have in important effect e those inter e tekI believe behee on the future of the Bonneville Irrigation district h the suit attempts to ave l-ave ave the court dee ae b by wholesale shat hat It has bas decided m in Severs dual cases recently recent brought b br b farmers mers under under un unI under I der Lire life Bonneville Irrigation dis- dis dis tiset ditches Several of tl-l tl rc fat farm farmers m mI mers I ers of late have been able to pros proto pro proto I to the satIsfactIOn of the Second St-cond district court that when the th d was that nut or organized of their theu respective pieces or o it was attempted ta to t include m in inthe inthe the district 0 was as tc to or othe othe- othe use arse defective On t thi lI showing an I interpreting a fonnet decision of the me court those these pieces of e hate bern been eluded e from the district and ind tax liens hens against t them em for irrigation district h taxes fixes es not paid hive hale h e b been n voided olIed Such a JudgmentS judgment sis w-is S SatUr Saturday ny in a suit brou l by C W rum Ih-rum Sessions Orson Ses Sea ions ions and ind Leland II H Sessions n against mst the district This case was vas heard early last wee week and in Saturday y s de craon t the court set aside ta tai sal s which have been made Jande for tor district l taxes es and md vested title hUe to the tho property with the The district dir and the county officers were I en orr d rom ram rom levying or assessing any taxes n against the property of these iti s In this case the I court h d s decision on i r fees fcc s It found in the description of the prop I ert given gJ h In the stat en engineer meer when the district is was as as formed and I It also found that t the district hadnot had hadnot hadnot not extended its canal system so that the property m question could re receive re- re reecho echo e benefit The case of le Arg Arg Ie and 2nd others a against the district di tract and bounty i vials came before the court on demurrer de presented b by b attorneys forthe for forthe forthe the county and district When th s was overruled 0 tho th defense elected to stand on its pot py-i p Ilon ion as already stated stat stated stated ed ednd and ind judgment nt was given in m favor of the Seventy three As the case now stands the district and the county officials ne le enjoined from levying le taxes takes ag ac the prop prop- properly property erly erty of the plaintiffs for IrrigatIon t purposes ps s The fact tact that the defense elected to stand standon on its demurrer instead of oft t taking the ten days s allowed ed it In whIch to file answer anser is taken to in m date that an appeal to the supreme court at once is contemplated I |