Show iG BATER creal contusion of watermarks Water marks THE FORMER Is the lehi monument eeli able different water marks the time yesterday afternoon in the big water bait now ua in the first district court between utah county and salt lake county cartiea part iea was consume ed bearick a lot of measurements from two engi noera for the salt lake parties mr doremus and mr mccallister the testimony was in effect that a new dam across the jordan was on the same level as the old dam isreal evana testified that he has re fidei in lahi for about 24 years and had in located a low water mark near the lehi bridge on the county road lea ling to cedar valley it was at the bottom of a slough he had served aa commissioner in 1835 sa he ana the other located a monument in conformity with his low water mark to it the monument was of red sandstone and the tup of the monument was 4 feet 4 inches above the compromised low watermark francis bid hop cawlina and others were there aheu the monument waa nut down all parties acquiesced iu the location ot the monument and the commissioners bince then had recognized the monument as a leal one on he said he saw the surveyors locate their where he told them to place them he did not believe they could be more than a quaner of an inch out but he acknowledged having no knowledge of the working of the instruments mi aitkin who had kept the jeaa arment of the south end was present and said be was not certain that evans had located the rights mark ant could be certain tr m the he aitkin kept the moun ment was out in by a bar as well as by evans low water mark there was but about an inch difference between the two he did not believe that the parties before the high coun cil bad recognized hia low water mark they had recognized the bar it was believed at the arbitration that all measurements practically agreed witness knew nothing of the madsen or aidina marks at the time the monument was the two haye since claimed their low water marks as the correct ones located during the dry of 1879 they were then nn douht edly all at low water mark bno it was found by subsequent measure ments that the water at the south end of the lake raised faster then the north nd the morning israel evans was recalled for further cross examination he testified that the low watermark he bad pointed out to mr doremus in was situated in a slough and waa establish ed 1879 the low water mark was eix inches below the surface of the slough this low water mark bad been established from the low water mark on the bar at the mouth of the jordan river the conclusion of the arbitration commission in 1884 was that at low water mark the depth of the water on the bar was about 16 inches he also testified that he heard no objection from mr aitkin to mhd establishment of the lew water mark placed in the alingh mr edwarda who waa conducting the cross examination read from mr evanac testimony given in the caad mr esaua bad there testified that mr aitkin wai bot satisfied with the mark he now said that this waa trun mr aitkin said that he did not know buether the mark waa right or not till be had compared it with his own and the madain mark bat mr aitkin made co objection to ane establishment of the mark L john testified that he was secretary of the board of arbitration that sit in salt laface chiy in 1884 and was afterwards a member of the board ha riad from a copy of the records of the board of arbitration the names of the parties who appeared before the board to represent the several canal companies silt lake city and the land owners of utah county interested in the arbitration the copy was submitted in evia deuce there were three maiks used in the testimony the marks before referred to and were then believed to all agree on air nuttall state that from the respective points knew their ent but not much about the others he thought all were satisfied that the three points I 1 were accurately at low water mark john E booth another men iber of the board of arbitration testified that it was believed alt points except when the wind blew across the lake th or acu the water also higher hp stated on cross examination when water ran in at the south end anrine the spring the court wanted to know how long it would take for the water to find its level 1 I cant say said mr booth it would be high juat BB long as it would take water to move from one end of the lake to the other tha court still appears in doubt and said something about the laws of hydro mr booth continued ihnow that if the lake were dry and water were turned in at spanish fork river there would be in the lafee it the south ml before at the north end ihen fabe water would be higher at the north end the same would be if there were water in the lake engineer doremus told of establish ing the mark at the lake bridge with a hatchet he made fie mark from several points pointed out ba isreal evane one point was in the bottom of a donah in which there was a boat mr Dore naua at a former trial had tes fined that be made no mark that it already existed and he was somewhat confused on examination when confronted rith his former statement |