Show I 1 I 1 i I 1 I 1 AN IMPORTANT CASE CA SE I 1 interesting lilter esting charge in the he promontory 1 stock sait suit 4 1 11 A 1 colprit I 1 4 0 A cannot s so fence its it lands as 93 t to exclude I 1 t the from ittem to united I 1 states lands I 1 I 1 on saturday february slat a ver i diet of damages and coata costs was rendered in the first district court in the case a of john A taylor et al vs I 1 SI 31 bobford D buford et it al the case has i created a great deal of interest among amo D 9 stoc kmen and ia is also of some interest i to the general public A brief outline n 0 ot of the ca case a I 1 may not therefore bo be out 0 ut of the way j the promontory stock company compan yv Ye represented presented by al 31 B buford et al I 1 have purchased eed from the government every a alternate ternate section in a strip forty miles falde a ide north and south and ty elx miles cast east and meat AB As it la I 1 impossible tor for other stockmen stoc kmen to gra graze aez 0 their block stock on the government sections I 1 without crossing the sections of I 1 the promontory stock company a continual j legal fight has been the result I 1 the promontory stock company have seized sheep herds and driven them I 1 off to pounds on charges of trespass tre spas the sheep men have prayed for injunctions prohibiting the tile removal of their herds these cases k have not yet been bear hearl A in one 0 no of the chions at 29 there are certain springs which have been need used for years as a water n ater ing place for stock this section I 1 ia a owned by the company unable to dislodge outside cattlemen by suits forty two of which were planted in salt lake city some time ago the compa company ny deci led t to 0 fence up the e springs rings which they did in FO so doing government overn ment land was included in the land placed under fence mr taylor in visiting the place found his cattle djini of thirst and immediately chopped down the gate and gave his hi e herds access to the water the promontory company then seized his cattle tor for trespass abd and the present suit for damages was the it suit in tha the tho the jury the court laid down the following opinion i on which theoary brought in the verdict of damage damages while the defendant isk bould have a perfect right to fence in his own land ian over which and upon which no other person had a right to go he would not have under the law a right to fence in united states land or government land unless he bad had permission to do so EO so if it you find that he did lid in fact I 1 fence in government land with this section of his afi own a and other land laud that I 1 S be he owned and fenced this government land in euch such a we way with his own as to prevent the or any other person poison who is pasturing cattle in the vicinity from going upon the government land then I 1 instruct you he would bave no right to destra de strain ln cattle cattie by fencing in his own land laud with the government land in that way if it you find from the evidence ovi dence that the tle agn defendant efen dant took these cattle and horses whilst on section 29 and under these circumstances you must find for the plaintiff and eaid said seizure and detention were illegal legal and unlawful there ia is still another point the springs mentioned lie alongside a public road which road was also fenced in water is ten or twelve miles apart and it tho the company were allowed to fence up these waters except as far aa as their own land extends the regularly traveled road would be barred to the public or a removal to another point some ten miles made necessary on this point the court charged as follows if it you find that 1 those springs thus enclosed were lo 10 bated at and by a roadway which had been continually used and traveled by the public for ten years ears and upwards prior to its being enclosed without let or hindrance and that during that time tbt waters of said spring or springs had boon been appropriated and used by the traveling public resident a and cattlemen for the general purpose piar pose of supplying water to them then yo you u would bo be justified in finding that the defendant bad had no right to fence up the springs or such government land BO so as to preclude the plaintiffs from i r om water watering a their clock stock or using t the b 0 water from such spring or pasturing staring pa their I 1 cattle on the government land thus I 1 improperly enclosed |