Show 1J lrJ I 1 lt1 WATER OF lOST GREEK J Iilr riJ I Subject of legal Controversy i II I i Controver-sy in Court I i 11 1 i J i I SUPREME COURT DECISION to I u i t Lower Court is Reversed In I I i i < Ii i the Matter I II I 1 I I 1 r f I j i i J Case Is One in Which Many People lr1 II iu Sovier County Are Deep I Jt i I I i1 ly Interested I I JI f I 11 I r The Supreme court yesterday reversed 11 I the judgment of tho lower court In the j II b 1 cnse of the Lost Creek Irrigation com IIIIIFJ r I ivl parry appellant vs TV II Hex et al I I I t Tho suit involved the ownership of the II I tI waters of Lost crock Sevlcr county I tali I I R and after all the evidence had been q k I f taken the court announced fir have I paid very close attention but I am una II Il i r 4 ble to call to mind a scintilla oC testimony rn 1 ° IJ testi-mony that tends to show the amount of Flt 11 11 11 water that is there how much Rex has r the com much r 1 j been using and how l I I entitled to I parry claims that they are I f It counsel can do so the court will render I i fi if ren-der a decree It counsel cannot the I r court will dismiss the case II i j I The court afterward attempted to I j M I make an Impartial division of the waters 4 > I C i wa-ters from the evidence In the case butt but-t 1 1 j f I the plaintiff was not satisfied and took I an appeal jl I i 1 r The opinion of the Supreme court I r ni which Is written by District Judge I IB l 1 I Lewis states that after a review of all I > I III the evidence in the case we are of the i 11I I l opinion that there was not sufficient Itt I I 7 I evidence to enable the court to determine I tt i1 ai ll I ll deter-mine the amount of water the parties It I III 1 t p I i arc entitled to and that the finding t I r that the plaintiff and defendant have i each diverted and used onehalf of the Jlt 1 1 normal flow of the creek Is not supported I sup-ported by the evidence I Iii r It Is ordered that the judgment be AI I Ii reversed and the case remanded to the r r r c i court below with directions to grant anew 11itt1 i I 1 I a-new trial and that 1 each party pay his + ac I t own costs on this appeal 11 Chief Justice Baskln and Justice 1t l I j I J Ir + l I 1 t Burtch concur In the conclusions drawn |