Show OPINION ON TODAY BY SUPREME COURT COliT Decision in Favor of Power Company Upholding District Court The broad bronti discretionary powers o otho of lie tho state engineer in regard to water rights within tho state was wis I the ho subject sub sub- of au an in handed down b by bytho tho supreme court this morning Th The case caso is that of Pool appe appel hint lant against the tho Utah County Light Ligh and Power company respondent anc and involves involve the tho question aa as to whether th the appellant or tho respondent has prior right to the uso of tho waters o of American Fork creek Tho rho decision dc of the tho court is in iii favor of time tho power company thereby up holding till tho district court of Uta county Tho court in rendering Ih the decision takes tho ho timo tims to construe th the state statute on Water t Rights an and Irrigation The Tho company was tho first to file o otho on tho water in in question but it did no not havo its plant completed in the time tim required by the tho state engineer nor duit du it make mako any application for au an extension ex cx- tension tennon of time until mutter after the cpi cpi- ratiOn of the tho than timo allowed however an extension of time tim was granted and later another exten- exten sion In Iii tIme tho meantime Pool hail had filed o othe on the water and his application hat bail been approved l by the flits state engineer It was not until after ho had work on MB his slant plant that that- ho lie was notified to stop Pool claimed that tho tha power company lund had forfeited its rights b buot by applying for the extension within time the required timo The Tho company as as- I that the tho state engineers engineer's wort word ought to bo be observed Jn In this the tho court upholds the company corn com pany holding that the tho act as passed i is such that Clint in cases of tills this kind the tho dc sic was at tho ho discretion of th the state engineer The Tho decision places a construction o otho on the tho law that makes the office of state stat engineer otto one of the highest importance ansi and power The rho opinion however reads We do not wish to be he understood a as holding that Cite tho state engineer mar ar am- extend time the limits fixer fixed bv by him him himat at any timo and under all cir cir cir- It t may well bo 15 that i ithe if the applicant has work so thail that tha il it may bo be deemed a virtual abandonment abandon abandon- ment of his application that tho acer neer may not in effect reinstate th the application aft after r a second applicants applicant rights under his application have navo at mit- and in iii that way defeat th the rights of tho second applicant 4 INn No such uh ease caso is presented rind and we therefore content ourselves with hold ing that lint under r the facts and stances disclosed by the tho record before ns us the tho state engineer did not exceed hi his newer in granting the tho extension to the respondent although the tho application was not made mado until thirty days day after the as fixed by the engineer had bad elapsed and do not determine what wha the tho extent of ot the tho engineers engineer's powers to extend the tho time limit under all cir cir- may bo be Pools Pool's application for water was filed before the expiration ol oC the power company's rights under it its first op Justice Prick IVick renders the decision und and his fellow members of the court concur Justice Prick Frick was writer of another unanimous decision also handed down ansi and front from Utah county the tho judgment of tho lower court in sentencing sea sen Mrs Elizabeth Moore for a statutory crime is affirmed |