Show JO f COMPANY OI SUES Seeks c ci ro to 1 l cur Ih Sum of ot ls iiii John Juhn ii I ouk u Hull Bull was wim Wil flied ONI III In the district court today bodIly by h the American com eom company COl pany hint of or n l John Johl Cooke Cook CookI to iii I recover n it I total of lt 23 alleged to II lit lie title due plaintiff for Ir money 1010 paid out outon on Iii ni two I V ii hOltA s carded a I by II I Conic 0 In II I ii mild Rall ica Id In II time the count of ot tho Ihl complaint It I Is l alleged that the tie plain tiff HIT Ir laid IV I 1 It 1 Moan Ieans time the Ihl SUI of uC 36 i for tor or breach of ot contract on un the putt of o Cooke noke 11 ill n the of oC mi Itt apartment In ill II Denver In the second count It I Is I alleged that hint the plaintiff I a I i if wits WIM compelled I to t a pay P Y an its UI RUIL SUII su re ly I on Oil 01 Cookes bond 2000 to 10 the lie West Western I Ier ern er em company of oC Denver be lie lIU t of or breach or of contract on 01 au this the part III of ot Cooke In Iii II addition to 10 the 11 total Hula HUH Ium mentioned I above 11 auks asks fees tel judgment for 1500 OO 00 as 11 attorneys ISE Oi OF Sl Smi Court That CUl ti a 1111 Ii I nr tv r Irh irI t ii t e Land ill n d Time The Til mut thin afternoon handed down an nit 11 opinion the time Judgment n of if tin t 1 hI lii lower court In Iii 11 the therose rose of ot K l 1 J T 1 Nash IRh it Leo 11 lu et t 1 al oh appellant The his action was 01 In II county to 10 a alight C right light of ut way ii I ii aCio time the land bid of or de 11 det iou ditch ti whereby rob t tom for an nn Ii 0 Irrigation Irrl i t lr could bo ii h and ii nil used In itt 11 ir It 1 latin farm trl Defendants In Inthe inthe the lower cut interposed l 1 a n general en which wits was 18 overruled by liy II the Ihl court oil Ft 1111 1 nil Judgment judg umen t it re nil ci el in Iii II of o plaintiff An n appeal Wits was Will taken by I hi IC ml t M from Ito nm that t t Judgment j It ItIs I ItI Is I s contended Co lit 1 by I Ii appellant Ii hum t that t ha t the tho t ito ji cr erred ermeti 1111 In Iii 11 the do iio for the t onion that I I the com coin COl 1111 lit on In n Its IH face t that use to 10 hn lit of o the tue sought to tl be hue con condemned Ol 11 IH is private and In Iii II no ito H ft I public ue use n Justice McCarty who ilmo v rot it the lie Ii t opinion III II lou of or the t lie supreme 11 miti p rc I I holds s that bitt t In iii vi low of t Ihl t lie physical a climatic ii I t ir conditions toad I In this his t state tto tin til use St of lt water for or Irrigation N is most I ii rudl a It public Ic use MI The Judgment of ut lt the lie Ile lower court Is II therefore The fhe opinion Is In concurred In by Justice J 3 Justice HaNkin and 1 from fro I by u Chief To 1 0 cl 1 lii Hotel I told Suit t was WIM II lou In 11 I ii tho t ii 0 ml is tic t court t to toia day In ia by the tho Western loin Savings ny Alexander A fR auth RII 1111 ness to tn foreclose a 1 muon gage upon it lion the lie I property operated by IW I u ii til us I it n a lintel hint ci ii nil saloon so too a at lt ii nl iii Junction The Chi tr rK WM t given to 10 secure I time the payment of lit tC u it not nato 10 I 1 for rOI 16 60 for fol or which amount plain plaintiff tilt tiff ni ks Judgment together with wih limber Inter I est cut 0 i cost of ot insurance end ond od tO 60 nt nl lOf H fees I Personal Pt Ii ii I Damages fall I t in it eS The rime 1 J 1 I Mining i liming van H titled I today In iti the I States district hurt court for or by Iy b James H 11 I McNeils ii lc II Oi IS a It I miner I ii I He 1 I I a alleges ii I tint that t on oil SePt I 1 1903 ho he was wnM working In iii 11 u it I mine mineI I i ml eth by hi h the til iii defendant itt t roll III ii 3 an 11 ii Ii 11 LI he lie was getting off of the tho tw cige gP on an I one of oC lt time the lower 10 levels It was has suddenly hll ted time The plaintiff I Ill I C was wail 11 t hi ruin ruina a gal as t heavy le I y Umber 1 Ii id Ills I I Itt Injuries I U rus ato 1 Alleged a ii to 10 bu ito perman permanent 11 ent mit bis h iii I a hark back and 1111 a nil spile a Internal i mit u been hurt In iii II such a I manner thi I hi iu t labor In II to In him hll hi limm Impossible sible Ible S Sunup the bite tl plaintiff In 11 I ii the Court Ih court coti it today t a dl 1 l mum fed the Ih appeal In iii time the ruse IHO of ot time the Ihl Dry Dr reek reck i r and 0 uth Irrl I bit company coma put mm ap nIl appellant nhI I n t Y s e the Ihl t lie Draper pa r Irrigation I t iou com coin 01 pat Tho Ihl for tor or a 1 rehearing In iii II time tho cane ca Cr of cit lt the he I Orion Orient I Mining uI I ii i tug company till ift fly vt 4 W v W v Freckleton Ilton was WM denied demi icil today I ii y by I tho ime I supreme court J on ill tl Note te Judge lAwla today 1011 tendered i Judg Judgment ment in lit favor of ot plaintiff In lit the Iho ease cane t of ut Ullia I Wells against Oo and lel A I L i for the sum n of at S and nud Interest hillcrest at s por ier cent from two Relit 7 iSO tim fh suit stilt HUI wn isit Wi brought In 1 recover on aim 11 n it I ory note noto 1110 axe xo tilled clet by 1 defendants 11 on mm 01 time tho above ditto date |