Show TOLD Of CANYON FILTH I Testimony in LairdRoach Cases Concluded II I I VESTED RIGHTS PROPOSITION The Testimony Tended to Show that I the Canyon Adjacent to the Creek j I was in an Extremely Filthy Condition I i Condi-tion Last October and that the Seepage from Barnyards and Other j Objectionable Places Reached tho I I Stream Defendants Plead that J L They Havo Cleaned Up Premises I II I I The case of the city against Edward Laird Slnn TV M Roach oC Parleys Par-leys CU1yon charged with befouling Parleys canyon stream was resumed before l Justice Thninony yesterday morning and the evidence was all in when court closed hi the afternoon II Arguments will be heard this afternoon I after-noon Frank B Stephens for the city I and Waldenmr Van Cott for the defendants de-fendants will make the arguments this afternoon and It Is possible thai a bottle of uncleanly lluid Cured from I I the banks of the creek at the Laird I place by Mr Gibbs may be analyzed by I tho city 5 PhI witnesses for the city were Land and Water Commissioner Westcrlleld Deputy Glbbs Pity Physician King City Engineer Kelscy A S Gcddes IIi I-Ii M Day and It J Jcssup The de I fcnse presented Edward Laird and son I j I James Taggarl W M Roach Martin Garn and J A Smith I The defense made no attempt claim that the nuisances complained of did not exist but endeavored to show that when their attention was called to the matter they made an effort in good faith to clean up also that the nuisances nui-sances did not exist to the extent complained com-plained of and counsll for the defense showed by the line of questioning I I adopted that vested rights would form a large fraction of the summing up for the defense The defense contends con-tends that owners of property along the creek have tho right to cause filth S to flow from their premises Into the EtrcamLAIRD 2 LAIRD CASE CAME FIRST The case against Mr Laird was taken lip first and Commissioner Westcrfield testified how from personal examination examina-tion In January he found that the barnyard drainage must necessarily I run Into lie creek Mr Van Colt hero brought out from the witness that the county road drainage was also Into the creek The witness explained that the condition of the yard and surroundings was such JH generally obtains among farmers In February last he found a S levee had been built between the yards I und the stream but believed that the seepage would run under the levee lu response to questions the witness said he heard stock could not be kept in he canyon without using or befouling1 the stream However witness thought afterward that stock might be watered from wells at a distance which would lend I to neutralize the seepage by cleansing through stretches of earthS earth-S S KELSEY ON TIIE CONDITIONS City Engineer Kelsey testllled that the barnyard and corral grounds slanted slant-ed ten feet to the hundred approximately V approxi-mately and last summer when he was on the spot there was nothing to prevent pre-vent the drainage directly into the creek However If liquids seeped through ten feet of sand It would be I practically pure All the canyon drain aqo goes directly Into the creek The only practical way would he to keep Iho stable and corral upon the bench andrun the liquids out onto the ground There are users of the water nearer the polht of diversion than the city proper viz the penitentiary and other residents resi-dents City Physician King Inspected the Laird premises late In February find 5 luj several cows In the barn and 160 L Kluep on the bank and the usual condition con-dition of things among farmers obtained ob-tained there Discolored snow was melting and the liquids were seeping under the snow There was also a chicken yard fifty or sixty feet from the creek GIBBS AND HIS EXHIBIT Deputy Gibbs testllled that the leveeS levee-S was built since February Gth last and ran from four to six feet from the S fill com starting from the bridge and running inside the barn fence further 5 eZoun Nothing but the frost would keep the liquids from running Into the stream Witness produced a bottle of y umbercoorcd liquid he had taken from the liquid lllth running into the creek a respectablesized stream of It salt eight feet from the fence There S vas enough of It to Jill the bottle easily The bottle was offered In evidence Since February lth I all of the loose manure had been hauled out of the i corral corralWHAT S WHAT REPORTERS SAW F M Day Tho Tribune photographer testified to having been sent up the canyon on October 25th to photograph notable places where the stream was 5 brfoulcd and 11 J Jetjsup a Tribune rcporler testified to having been sent also to write up the facts as Ithey existed ex-isted A S Geddes accompanied them nnd ther testimony pointqd out that S 1 litre was manure all over the prem isca In front of the barn and corral some of It quite deep and in place hanging over the bank of the creek There was also something of a dirty stream running Into the creek where the cattle went to drink coming from the bam and adjoining localities The condition of the yards was much as In other yards where manure had been allowed to accumulate and rot during the winter I WESTERFIELD DENIED I Mr Westerlleld recalled denied hayIng hay-ing said to Mr Laird This Is part of the campaign when Laird said he would do everything In reason rather lhan bo subjected to criminal prosccu ion r Wosierflold slated later that Mr I Laird had told him that he did not want to plead guilty aa it might affect the price of his place 1 THE DEFENDANTS STORY Edward Laird Sr testified that he had built his house and barn In Pure Pur-e fI canyon thirty years ago If ho had built hit barns out on the aide hills It would have been very Inconvenient 7 The present barn was built twelve years ago Witness stated the water was used for Irrigating In Sugar House and Farmers and not for culinary pur 0 poaeB Watermaslers never objected to > defendants use of his premises up to I the time the city took the water The city objected first in 1S04 Witness had complied with Mr PendletonH request at that time for the observance of more sanitary measures This year he also complied with requests Everything was cleaned UD the last of October I I TAGGART WAS MIXED James Taggarl Lairds man In charge got badly mixed up In his testimony tes-timony contradicting himself several times about lie rreCuenc with Which s the promlBva were cleaned up LalrJ Jr gave testimony corr6boratlvc ot his fathers and Laird Sr gave an explanation expla-nation an to why he had not built that djko before The Roach case was finished In a nhorf Urn ho witnesses for tho city tsrhfyIng Ic f rh grbnIat flIthiims of the barn premises where the liquid manure lan Into the creek while Roach claimed hu had dug holes for the reception re-ception of the refuse Messrs Garn and Smlths testimony was really advantageous ad-vantageous for the prosecution show tug that the users of the creek water nearer the canyon than the city had been using the water for years previously pre-viously for culinary purposes |