OCR Text |
Show pleasant Grove Wins I Important Decision I Word was rocelvod Wed. from tho I dty nltornoy'by' Mayor Hayes, that tbe Supremo Court o( Utah had up-I up-I held tho actions ot tho Pleasant Grovo I m their long controversy with Art-I Art-I icus Holmnn over tho Irrigation va-I va-I urs of tho North Field (Manilla). Tho fl cue has been tried in thclowor courts lercntecn times since 1800. Each fl tide hus won suvoral decisions. At I lut It was appealed to tho Supreme Court for final action, and ns a result (fl Hcasant Grovo has won Its cubo com. fl pletely. I Justlco Frlck wrote tho decision fl uhlcli was confirmed In detail by two fl other Justices of the Supremo Court. fl Justlco Gideon concurcd with tho I decision fully but thaught that tho I basis of tho decision should havo been H reached by another line of reasoning. H Justlco Thurman was disqualified and I H could not act. Pleasant Grove there-I there-I foro hns tho unanimous decision of H tho Supremo Court. H A brief Summary of the Case. HJ A brief summary of the case is as H follows: Mr. Holman owns land outs' out-s' ildc of tho city limits ot Pleasant H Grovo which Is irrigated by water H which the city wns compelled, through flj legislative action, to distribute. Mr. H Holman contended that tho city could H not tax outside of the dty limits. IIo flj on a doclslon In the lower court, H compelling Pleasant Grovo to deliver H Irrigation wator to him and yet refus-fl refus-fl cd tho right of the city to collect tho H water rates. In the doclslon of tho H Supremo Courts It holds that the city I docs not havo tho right-To tax outside fl tbe city limits for governmental purposes, but it docs havo tho right to collect taxes, foes, sums assessments outside tho city for malntalnanco pur- poses, etc. Tho validity ot tho city ordlnanco of 1890 and 1905 was at-H at-H tacked by Mr. Holman, especially flj those of 1905 becauso they were based flj on certain state laws which 'wcro nf-H nf-H terwnrds repealed. Tho court holds that tho city ordinances portalnlng to tho water question wcro valid, and tendered Its decision accordingly, and entirely in fuvor of Pleasant Grovo. Thoro will still havo to ho ono mor0 court action, ns tho decision of tho Supremo Court will havo to bo delivered deliv-ered to tho lower court and they will bo compelled to render a dcfclslon favorable to Pleasant Grove now that tho law has been Interpreted for 'them. Tho caso Is Important from sovoral points of vlow. It terminates for tho city a struggle tasting over thirty years. Ilut more Important than that many cities which hav0 been in tho same position ns Pleasant Grovo havo been anxiously waiting for this do-'clslon do-'clslon for they havo problems iden-leal iden-leal with thos0 of Pleasant Grovo over Irrigation water. Some of theso cities nro Ogden, Provo. Nophl, Mt. Pleasant, Sprlngvllle, Paynon nrlgham, Cedar "City and others. |