Show THE mm JORDAN DAM m mm judge kin kings is findings in regard to obstructions I 1 FOURTEEN INCHES THE HEIGHT that Is the not ket allowed in the dam after deducting for the obstructive bir removed Clo closing sirri out oat the business of the first district brict court many blany cases dismissed both criminal and civil judge king at provo yesterday handed down an aji important decision in the long pending utah lake case eriov known n by the court title of 0 salt lake city ot ct BL al vp v joseph 11 II Col colledge Collad ladge go et al wherein the only remaining question was tho amount ot of pa plank ank that suit salt lake I ako parties c cn can n maintain in jordan river all other questions in tho the case being corn compromised ilia honor fully appreciated the I 1 am m pittance poi pot lance tance of the case and said the that t lie ho was hardly satisfied sail fled with the testimony in the case the first question was whether plaintiffs had removed obstructions from the bed of the river so that they would bo be entitled to certain obstructions in tho the river liver claim to have 0 removed 2114 inches from the bed of the river lut lul would be satisfied now with the privilege of 0 placing 22 inches of 0 plank mank in the river ills honor did not think that under the agreement of 0 the parties the commission was given the right to control the planks ot of the river the agreement rends reads the dam LS As at present constructed defendants have strenuously maintained that no obstructions have been removed from the bed ot of the river the evidence plainly showed by the testimony also of israel evans a fair man who he resides lit in utah county that at least one bar was removed in IS 89 c arid and penson also utah courty men corroborated that testimony and it was strengthened by the testimony ony ot of salt lake par parties LIes engineer dorcsis Dorem Dorc mis ss had made survey of that bar in aso and so did sir mr mccallister McCal llster and both their notes agree that the river liver Is lower today mr air dor c n 1 rus stated that the bar tv was of at the 0 same a height on both sides but this ill did d not seem to the court to bo be consistent there la Is some negative testimony but it Is not sufficient for the court to say that there was no bar the next question then js Is how bow high was that bax bar tor for it the defendants ze ic moved it they have a right to an equivalent obstruction on tills this point the testimony was very conflicting and tho the court feared he could not give exact justice to either perhaps neither rally party capt youngs testimony was not full on that point but en gincer doremus says it was 7 inches high capt young says it would be equaled by a 22 inch dam furoli further r up the river mr thomis thomas gave similar ati many the available grade line tile the court thought was only one inch which added to the seven revert inches ot of the bar would show that eight inches at the point ot of the dam would be the fullest extent ot of its height the court thought that fourteen inches of 0 plank at the point at 0 the dam aou would id have fully as great a resistance as the obstruction removed and he so ca held arT arriving iving at this conclusion byr deducting 1 the eight inches above found equal to the ob above the dam from the twenty two inches both asree agree on is as the plank limit the ne new dam was held to be no obstruction md and W that could be maintained the other boards or planks abo above 0 the fourteen inches may be maintains maintained 4 until the compromise point or until the commission shall order thera them out atter after october alst of 0 each year CLOSING OUT BUSINESS judge king spent all day yesterday winding up the business of the first district court at provo prove such cases as the prosecuting attorney would agree to were dismissed and the other oilier cases were a amply hold held over to await the action of the state courts the fil alea es will be kept at provo until an am order Is s made by the legislature for disposition to the various districts CASES DISMISSED the following cases were dismissed people vs J C moore forgery people vs jacob yates battery people vs adam burglary people vs thomas thomaa moore resisting all of fleer people va john johnson anson grand larceny people vs george mckinney two cases burglary people vs arnold castor two cases grand larceny people vs henry marshall rape people vs anna marks resisting an officer united states vs nathaniel edmunds operating a coal mine in an it 11 legal manner R C Heber hebertson vs J C nelson plaintiff allowed 30 50 and costs of suit almon aimon robison vs peter greenhalgh motion milan tor for the possession of 0 property denied isaacs cook vs gilson asphaltum company demurrer overruled ten days given to answer edward lewis vs almo almis mining company two costs cases defendants given fifteen days additional time in to plead peter greenhalgh vs meadow irrigation tion company plaintiffs motion to strike out defendants cost cast bill all allowed owed james day et ct al vs joseph 11 II turner forty days given defendant to pre arc part statement on motion for a new trial george L hyde vs joseph nelson ne son et ELL al decree in favor of 0 defendant each elle alde to bear its ita own costs people ex rel vs town of vernal plaintiff given sixty days to prepare a statement state merit on motion for a new trial goshen irrigation company no s C E nelson et al findings of tact fact being lost a substitute copy was ordered people vs VH thomas F 1 mccune befouling water motion fornea trial de ier I 1 n aled led and defendant elined 10 thirty days rivers n to prepare statement for a I 1 new trial eureka mining company vi vs s cen I 1 tennial eureka mining alining company plaintiff allowed to amend complaint |