Show IN THE DISTRICT COURT division vision in and tor for towle county state bbate ot of utah B E B lax lakteen teen plaintiff va Ss tile mant canyon clo jo defendant rocele city december 14 1908 BYTHE COURT I 1 ills bin matter was aiken under advise mout gioi t and tho the court his had id retentive briefs submitted n by counsel for plaintiff and the defendant ball and I 1 havo have ronn gono over the in ifor ea 08 amral ully os an 1 I 0 and s iso siso consulted w with ill noine mome of tho the other juices of the court in ia regard to io it the court is is of the op opinion tint the tha is on fillod to reller as u prayed lor for now this thia does pot pol mean that plaintiff has hag any ally right to I 1 u a anny ny wy way do da rivo rive the settlement Sctt lemont canyon company of any or of its water nor los las he ha tho the light to the tha atar water the fhe authol tira I 1 havo have those submitted addition there thereto 0 as well as aa others in a iam to hold bola to the idea that the defendant company hia bits not tile the right to go upon the planera land nod and sink weer onor thin as is ia t akau out tho the water course no BO that tho the wrier water will flow down to the point where th ahn company receives ives it alter it if come lff ff tile I 1 sad of PI plu latiff lu tiff I 1 am sat caussee isaf 1 I from the decisions of tho the utah supreme court lo that tho the plaintiff has the right to 10 take this water and aad carry it around over his laud land in any way that is necessary to 0 o him to carry out tle the proper development ot of va land ho he j s it in quantity and iu in qu quality lity and delivers it at t the point where it leaves the land into the stream or ditch or chrobel ot ae tho settlement canyon co having thia right ho he has the nihl to explore his hia ground if lie he can do so without diminishing the a mount of n vater iter or contaminating the water that this company ia 18 entitled 11 to 0 they thomara a re clearly entitled to 0 o their water as 68 it comes oft ak this jana lao d and they tire no entitled to it 11 in that way tain in 1 and undefiled unde Bled in tp thora in ia no ho evidence ju iu this catie cana thai e that tho the 5 it the ot of fa facts ai delivered by counsel does not bear beagan any y I 1 I 1 believe I 1 have hava covered all tho the cointo raised in it thle thia cilke except he question ol at injunction injun cuon aabel n dy v tho the plaintiff aj such injunction may bo be ir ranted 0 on a behalf or of the cestr boing tho the defendant flow unnecessarily cx cavatina abing upon tho the ground ot of plain plaintiff tir and the lu luction may be ba in force run hinr with tho tha rig haj of plin tiff in the land it may bo be p lie as to lis rights 9 that is ig with his righta it le lose 1000 title tille to tho the ilja next your by I 1 allure to pay ho he required amount to the tite of utah tho the injunction would eaphe with that krisht tho the order mry may ba vande finding fiadini the in I 1 ever avor ot of the plaintiff aud that flu dings p bad nd decree be drawn dhawn in accord adoo therewith |