Show WATERS RIVER Injunction Suit the Salt lake taka E trl tried 1 Pow Power Company utah end Stilt Snit Lake Iao I hue Its III S 1 The Utah and Salt Sail tAke Lake Oa paD pany has haI injunction n i ings 1 Ute the Salt Lake IAk City 1 ud and Power l t eh strain the attendant front 41 r water chimed by 11 plaintiff t tutu Thi I Jordan Jordn river Tile The complaint alit aIt es that since ine the year 1811 plaintiff b bu hRh used u and nd I is entitled to of l In the river at th the Jordan durin during t tm Irrigation season front April 1 to N Na vember 30 In each year and during the remainder of each year eAr Is Ia ii ot of the flow all time world worldOn worldOn On December V 1897 1597 It is II Jordan Jorden River a company the defendant Ire In interest bum built a other for tor the PIli f flug till lug the water him river and nd that for tor the awn lum 0 of the nil plaintiff agreed to allow ma de defendant the use UN ot of its canal to t time the Vatere It Int to take tak from time the river with the Ud standing that defendant won t the canal to a Li Liry r ry the additional flow and Ulli put t tIn In ne new etc It WI was If 1 ly Iy stipulated th the complaint all alleges IMI t the defendant would have bave no l the water owned and used by thE plain plaintiff 0 U tiff c The complaint then toe goes on to that the defendant company noW itoW 4 to th the plaintiffs flow ot of from the river and In addition for It itself elf of the I in lii rIver before plaintiff has baa obtained Or l received It Its It Is II ol 11 ld that the water at Si ery ry low luw and tb t there is II not lot for the wants anta or of the plaintiff anti hiS other r and nd the city tive of the secondary right ol o the tie on April ltd took In all the owned by tile the leaving ng whatever for lor the tanners tl the holde In the plaintiff company w the plaintiff ft supplies with rt lar a irrigation anti and culinary purposes lt It j then alleged that the defendant though it put In hi new to enlarge the canal accordIng ecoN tO tongred ment and It is II that the II be required to make enl 0 agreed upon that It be Sit plaintiff hu has exclusive I the regulation of t the flow of fife the canal Inal and that hat the del 11 enjoined from avo l I lover over It and that It bt be also aJ from interfering with lb a ab b by the plaintiff In III any manner ever issued a straining order and made tIme the sauge r Monday April IS 11 |