| OCR Text |
Show NO CASES READV IN DISTRICT COURT Adjournment Therefore Taken to ' April Term Important Supreme Su-preme Court Decision. (Special to The Record.) Parowan, Utah, Jan. 12. The January Jan-uary term of the District Court for Iron county convened today at 2 p. m., and after calling the calendar and finding no cases ready for trial, except ex-cept some probate matters, the caurt adjourned until April 17, at 2 p. m. The attorneys having the probate cases in hand being absent from the State, they could not be heard at this time, but inasmuch as these matters can be disposed of at chambers, there need be no unnecessary delay. important Supreme Court Decision. An important water case was recently re-cently tried at Monti, involving wat-j wat-j ers of the Sanpitch River. Amasa i Rasmussen, who owned land along said river and irrigated his land for fifty years, and owing to water being taken out on higher lands, it eventually even-tually percolated through Rassums-sen's Rassums-sen's land and into the river, and had j been appropriated by parties below. Rasmussen's land had become waterlogged water-logged and boggy by such seepage, , and he constructed in recent years drains for the purpose of reclaiming his land by means of which he developed de-veloped quite a flow of water, which ; he sought to apply on other lands : than that from which said water was ' collected. To the latter use the Moroni Mor-oni Irrigation company and others objected, and Rasmussen brought suit lo quiet title to said drainage waters. Judge D. II. Morris, who tried the I case at the request of Judge Chris-tenscn, Chris-tenscn, decided that the percolating i and seepage waters formed a part of I the sources of supply of Sanpitch river, and while Rasmussen had a i perfect right to drain his land and I use sufficient of the waters collected from his drainage to irrigate any parts of the land so drained, the rest of the water must be turned into : the river for the benefit of those who had appropriated it lower down. This case was taken to the supreme 'court on appeal, and it is important I for the reason that there were five : other cases of equal or similar na- 1 ture pending in the same court, as well a.s quite a number in other parts of the state. The Supreme Court comments on the importance of i this case, and among other things says : "To avoid, if possible, any misconception mis-conception respecting the scope and meaning of this decision, we, in conclusion, con-clusion, feel constrained to remind the reader that this case belongs to a ; class whjich lis readily distinguish-' distinguish-' able from all other classes known to the law covering the subject of irrigation. ir-rigation. This case falls within what for convenience may be denominated "a river system case" which arises and can arise only in irrigated lands which lie along and within the water shed of the river, stream of water COUrtOi whether natural or artificial, from which the seepage and run-off water arising from Irrigation, if not intercepted will eventually return to the stream or water course from which it was originally appropriated by prior appropriators and diverted by them at some point further down the stream. This case, so far as we are aware is the first of its kind coming to this court, and it is for that reason as well as for others which will readily read-ily suggest themselves, that we recognize rec-ognize the Importance of this decision. This decision is not intended to apply to what is known as artesian or sub terranean waters, the sources of which lie deep within the earth's surface." The Supreme Court sustained the lower court in every particular and confirmed the decision. |
