Show CONNor CONNOT CHANCE W TER COURSE tl r Judge Howell Howel Gives Decision Involving Right of Eminent Eminent Emi Erni- nent Domain t t I IDI DI DIAMONDS MONDS DISPOSED OF OFA A Alma Ii 11 Cats Cat's eIl I on en-on Required 10 n Return Re- Re 1 turn to In 1 Jc It Alleged c v to o Ha e 1 Ia se Been Kept by Jy J Him I iii Republican th Street ti den May ray 24 Judge Judge J. J A. A How How- of if the Second district court today I down two important decisions Involves the recent effort of the r I Lala O Ogden ln ii Railway company t l lands to secure a rl right ht a j for OF the proposed se electric nn line hue the mouth or If O Ogden den canyon and amI I o T foT ri to filler upon the land if J fending the final determination of oC the v IU lulu uIt I I i 1 1 j Ii Ri cr Br lied Bed 1 Musi Remain t tj An n essential e point jont In the case cage arose arose f over the tile application to condemn two t Jl pieces es of land and which are In a t position ft 1 i.- i. immediately adjoining the proposed light of et way for the thit purpose of diverting divert divert- cl o l f hiu ing the COUI coure of Ogden river which flows flow's through thu the Ull Inn land of M. M t. t S. S Brown Brown- one of nf the thie defendants defendants' The rhe c courts court's opinion is that Ih the question question ques ques- i tion on resolved Itself on whether the I court couri ha has Jurisdiction to permit a aye v ye Change In the thIE course COUse of the river and andL L Whether t such a n change is nece necessary r r to ti public use a as I Is contemplated b by v thc permitting the plaintiff to fl eXorcist th the right of eminent domain The Tho testimony as received h by tho ho thoI I c court urt I Is held 1 to Indicate that if It J the ther r plaintiff Is permitted to change the COll t of or the lie Ih river rier It I would be he un- un 4 t J-t ry to construct bli bridges g maJ making ln I th tho ha CU cost coat of the railway much less les and If ir built without bridges would be i much for foi the Le public than if built buill hult p with Ih them The CO court It on this says t It seems lm to th the court th therefore from this testimony that It I Is not shown that Che tie he nc lf for or the thin change chanse In the channel chan chan- 1 nel of ot he the river Is Isch such ch a ns Is II i r plated Nate by IX 1 the statute pu mittIn the right of Nr domain for or It I Is tin general rule nIle the mere Increase In the costs cost of jf C construction and maintenance of or a railroad does 1005 1108 not 01 rot Justify the exercise e of or V. V 1 the Hie pow r ow r. r r. r of or eminent domain but hut c even en 4 11 n ur the COt court Jt would say ny that such a use 4 n In a n nCr necessary public U use f. f still the court Is of of- that under the tho statute which gl Rive th the plaintiff corporation the right to cerIse the power powel o of oC eminent domain WJ mat t this this- court I Is without juls- juls Juris I Oton diction mit a Chang change of or a water j W It 11 runs rum through lands land outside of ot Unit that f eh is 11 sought to ho Ie hI con condemned In th tl SC on for such power lowr i ta 18 not tx- tx e. x gt gi n i to the court ourt In the statute i tOT for an nn ord lt r r p fi fhe p 1 I t con in In la this inis oa nay may t i h r or re lH be f tUl so N tar far n as is the tw foot CC-foot root G-root T strip U h 4 other othor porton portions portions' concerned on c but dented denied as to the theothor Mu i t t The other opinion was In the case cas 0 of Charles M. M L Carstensen a as of oI the e estate tote of Jol Karen n Carsten Carsten- sell sen against again t Alma B. B Cars Cars- and anti wa was rendered In favor or fa of or off f S the plaintiff with an order requiring r the lie tie defendant 10 to return to the the r tate a 0 diamond valued at ant an and in itt il cash cah The he J matter mahr was brought be before be- be fore ro the court on in j a citation ordering oi the defendant to 10 testify regarding a u diamond stud an and a ring ling alleged to 11 have been hen wrongfully detained by him were vete included e In hut an te e Inventory of the estate an n and l when a n dp decree re of distribution distribution distri distri- t l was as as I issued fu d last December r II U I i is alleged that he he refused to lu deliver fr dt them theta to the the a administrator |