Show FIRST DISTRICT COURT COURY icat on hip of water waged in tho the district philip ford frels to afford some fun run on family matters THURSDAY dec 4 10 a m people vs david E browning appellant kimball fe heywood fur for fa plaintiff 1 I 1 lin tiff mr amr B sheeks fur for appel lant n t A jury was im paneled mr air heywood elated stated the case erect erecting ino a darn dam anil and taking water from burch creek when it was apportioned artion d to other parties by the vater master mr air fred garner was worn sworn but mr shee sheeks K objected to taking the evidence claiming that the complaint was taken under an invalid and repeal d act and that the had no legal authority to distribute ithe the water the act of congress gave appellant hia his right mr air heywood said the complaint was drawn under section 13 laws of utah 1880 the Court ordered llie tile evidence to be taken but expected that the legality of the distribution would not need to be tested in this case casse 1 mr F garner u testified tidied to being on burch creek and that nn on the of august last he be found defendant using water from u burch creek when it was not distributed tri buted to him and that he lie repeated the act later in the day cross examined acted under a company that organized 25 years ago having used all of burch creek five years previous 30 years in all their names were lester J derrick herrick wro win critchlow john 11 stevens vens and philip garner had no au authority from al mr r browning to act for him or from any other person besides thore mentioned question how was this compa ny organized answer they got lot their right from the county cuart and slid also from the city council Coun cili could not tell when cited redirect direct W when hen I 1 asked defendant why he did not consult the company he be said he was acting in dependently of them understanding jug h his la right better than they did mr win Garneri garnesson Gar nerson sou of the tile pra preceding witness testified to seeing defendants sons altering the dama dams i and tur turning in the tile water L J nei herrick rick testified that the water was apportioned to him on the Q do you know whether defendant was entitled at all or at any time lime to the waters of that creek objected to ans he was wm not ai oss examined the has been in effice 4 or 5 years the last time he was elected it wa was 9 b by me and W critchlow and Alel firs al dark clark and the stevena stevens boys defendant david E browning was sworn and testified did not himself break the dam nor turn the water on oil the day in question in dry seasons the parties named have bave from front the county court the exclusive water right when it passes below their dam defendant has it cross examined did not take the water himself nor direct any oilier other person to do po so water was used by him on oil hia his orchard rc hard on the lath of aukrust last it was not apportioned to him by the master saw mr gardner on that morning gardner testified it was the alth lorin farr eq E iq testified to knowing defendants farm and to knowing him since 1851 understood tho tile distribution of water mater on burch creek the map produced was a incorrect pointed to brownings farm farin itans originally owned and occupied by mr douglas who drew water from burch creek then for 22 years by air Mr stoddard who ho also used the water in bis his turn he ile sold to another party 7 who sold to mr browning mr stoddard Stu dilard had hail as much right to the water ol 01 burch creek in proportion to his land os as any silly other person aldr ugh he could not vot use the same ditch grosi examined have bove you ever lived on burch creek I yea yes sir many mapy I 1 was living at all times when I 1 was there which wua was afteu Laugh tt ti ra r gave his proper residence va dotso not so familiar croper with alie water dis trib ution for the amt ten years mr air stoddard dard bied to have the water every ninth day tho the court informed mr air heywood that at as this was a criminal action the result could not effect the tile water rights of the parties mr heywood quoting tc 13 avater act mr h eks that no evis dence had bad been shown to prove brove that thil defendant committed the act corn coni pla ineil of that was all he lie had ind to t meet this time although hid his riga right to use it had also been c idahl i ed the court charged the jjr there were water rights that were not controlled by our local usage the nue iti tion was whether defendant did put in one dam am and aud break an her ther as cb charged argel there waa was no doubt of his right to use the w at it r when running in tho the creek belew the te laio dt dam the jury retired and shortly re turned with a verdict of rot not guilty court adjourned to 2 p m 2 p pm mr air philip A ford was made I 1 s full flad fl decd ged citizen of the jnue states alter after creating some fun fi f I 1 the audience in court wl V t C ot asked th cr be he had ever broken the law forbidding ply amy he aid baid no the tile oue one I 1 have h ave id is big enough ellough for two court 1 I that your rea soil no air I 1 havo have never thought of that I 1 have found enough to do with one besides I 1 have good pring plenty of them I 1 have 53 children childre llund and grandchildren C C wilon willon wil on lon va vs reed ei et al trustees of wilson irrigation company kimball heywood for plaintiff judge williams fur for defend defendant aut A jury was im paneled mr air heywood elated that defendant alleged he lie was a member of the wilson irrigation company Comp aily P and complained of the comp company preventing him from taking water from the tile canal although he had paid his assessments assem ments ac ing damage to his crops to the amount of which amount he now claimed galvin calvin C wilson was swo sworn I 1 rn and deposed thai that lie was entitled tu to wa ter for 20 acres of land from t rum the W 1 I C ca u s canal r anal had no trouble last year ear had paid ins his assessments this year as required by the notice produced hail haf nine and a half acres acrea in grain four in cane cone one in potatoes half an ail acre in onions and half an acre in melons through rb rough having no water had hit entirely lost his onions and melons melous and suffered a great loss on other crops compared neighbors chopi aliat had been matere watered d with his own the reed had refused hiu hint water except one onetime time cro cross examined gut got all the water he lie wanted the fi first rt time about the end of june got uio the water again in about two weeks after did not water hs his wheat either time the stream was very poor had it from 2 p ro in of one day to 9 am odthe of the next did not water tha the wheat because it was too far gane it should have been watered about the first of julie had asked the company for the water did not ask in in person in in jul july out nf if his 40 acres had over 30 in in cultivation had sold 19 acres to air mr delane delanc and 25 toJo to john hii erb b but litno no water rights As es ment went notice for 60 cents per acre on oil 25 acres 1815 was put in evi deuce dence edward cook corroborated the previous witness cross examined the land is sandy and ail liable I 1 to being blown off there had been no to speak of oe did ait jat observe but one water ditch halfway through the wheat field 4 court adjourned to 10 am too to morrow |