Show NOW TOBE HEARD BY JUDGE v PITCH IE those charged with contempt must explain their actions to court from fridays standard before judge ritchie in the third district court in salt lake the motion of the attorneys for the defendants in the contempt of court proceedings edinga in the case of the north ogden irrigation co vs george A fuller et al to non suit was denied and the defendants ordered to appear in the second district court and show cause why they should not be adjudged in contempt the decision in substance means that the attorneys for the plaintiffs have shown sufficient cause to hold the defendants for contempt and that the real issue in the case has been reached this is the second motion ot the attorneys tor the defendants for discharge that has been defeated and they must now show good cause tor their action in destroying the dam in their motion for nonsuit non suit the attorneys for the defendants moved tor the discharge of their clients on the grounds that first sufficient evidence had not been shown by the plaintiffs to hold the respondents for contempt second that it was not shown that by reason of the defendants taking the water that they had deprived any one of their rights and that the evidence showed that there was water enough in the river tor the plaintiffs third that the plaintiffs must sue all point tort tensors tea sors to the action in handing down his decision judge ritchie dented the motion on all questions but ruled that the attorneys tor the plaintiffs must select which injunction they should stand on and prosecute that case accordingly the attorneys after consultation sul tation decided ift stand on the action commonly known as the geddes case this Is an action in the case of george A puller et al vs william geddes et al in which an injunction was granted sept 10 1892 in favor of the defendant geddes since the granting of the injunction the north ogden irrigation company have acquired the rights of geddes and hence are bringing the action in the hearing this afternoon the defense will have to introduce evidence showing an excuse for the alleged contempt and it haa been said that judge has stated in court that he would refuse to accept as testimony any evidence which is based on the claim that it water had been turned into the river that it would have failed to reach the ditches of the plaintiffs by reason of seepage or evaporation it Is not expected that the case will be finished this afternoon as there are probably a large array of witnesses to be examined |