| Show MT OLIVET CEMETERY restrained from taking more than its snare share of water I 1 the application for a prelim preliminary inary injunction in the suit of wm strong vs elijah sells et al came up before judge zane today the circumstances circum which led up to the litigation are briefly as follows in 1849 the tae settlers of 01 the me tract of land now BOW embraced in the first second and tenth wards took teak out ut a portion of the waters of emigration oration creek for irli irrigation gatton and other purposes in 1877 mt olivet aeme was set apart by the secretary of W war 8 and shortly after its boa board rd of directors ra by their agents begam taking water from the tenth ward ditch tho the people objected but by an understanding that the abe city would see their rights protected the matter was kept out oat of the courts though hber has bag been a continuous dis dispute about the water being taken from the original owners two or three years ago the cemetery people began taking out oat a much larger quantity than before and as the city last tall fall informed the the inhabitants of the words wards named that the corporation could do nothing in their behalf they I 1 authorized mr strong to bring the present resent suit As ion long a as s the people had all anything ilk like le a gis fair 1 r supply of water h e application for an order restraining the cemetery from using that belonging to others was wa a not pressed pre sied but now that the streams have bave been greatly dimisher dimis dimi bed shed further action has bag become necessary As an evidence of how bow those entitled to primary rights said in n the stream are treated it way may oe be said that now they get about one third enough water to supply their lots tor for one ene day in the week while the cemetery appropriates sufficient for its needs seven days in the week the complaint sets up the allegation that the plaintiff and those whom he represents represent eare are entitled to the ownership of the whole stream and askp that it be given to them it is likely however by the neglect to have the matter adjudicated by the courts in consequence of the understanding referred to the cemetery calmeter y has acquired a right to a portion of the water the arrogance of the claim that is made jib in their behalf can be understood unger stood from i the assertion in their answer to the effect that because the government goveria ment granted to them the cemetery cewe tiry grounds they have a right to take so much of the stream as they may deem necessary for their own j use it is this claim that has led the plaintiffs in this action to be more persistent that they perhaps otherwise would have been the matter was argued pro and con before judge zane who granted a temporary injunction restraining the cemetery folks from ut using 9 auy more water veater from the ditch ban 1 they doi three three years ago at the same season of the year there were some delicate questions connected with the subject as to have granted an order covering the whole water supply would woud probably have resulted in destroying the shrubbery in the cemetery cementer to avoid such an unfortunate resu result the court framed its order so that by a judicious use of the portion of the stream allowed the trees and shrubbery will have sufficient moisture to keep them in good condition while jalle it at the same time the inhabitants r represented by the plaint plaintiff liff will receive more of that to which they hold vested rights |
