OCR Text |
Show COURT DENIES CMMTHl Application for a w-rit of mandate was filed jesterday with the county clerk by the Davis and Weber Counties' Coun-ties' Canal company In its case against Caleb Tanner, state engineer, for the purpose of forcing the state engineer to allow the application of the plaintiff for water from the W'eber river for purposes of irrigation. According to the papers filed yesterday, yes-terday, the case has been dragging on for several months, the application applica-tion being returned to the applicants the first time on October 12, 1909. with a lotter advising that it must be made out on a special blank prepared pre-pared for that purpose. The application applica-tion was made out on the correct blank, according to tho plaintiff, and sent back to the state engineer, but was again returned to the canal company com-pany on October 18. 1909, this time because of an alleged mlstako In the dato and place of application. It is claimed by the canal company that the state engineer arbitrarily refuses to allow tho application, hence tbo action against him. The application of the canal company com-pany calls for the appropriation of 215 second feet of water from tho Weber We-ber river, tho securing of which will entrall the construction of a concrete dam across the river, with a wooden headgate and canal. It is proposed to use this water for irrigation purposes j between the months of April and November. |