Water Litigation.

Water Litigation.

马里兰州Tuberculos禁令诉讼is Sanitarium at Sabillasville has been instituted by George W. Hughes, the owner of a sawmill on Friends creek, near Sabillasville, which, it is stated in his bill of complaint, has been in operation by various proprietors for seventy years. The power for the mill is derived from the water in the creek, which is backed up at the mill by a dam. The bill of complaint states that the management of the tuberculosis sanitarium is having a 3in. pipe line laid from a point on Friends creek above the Hughes’ milldam to the sanitarium, its purpose being to take water from the creek to fill reservoirs at that place. It is alleged by Hughes that, in times of drought and low water, this pipe line would take all the water in the stream to the irreparable damage of his sawmill property, and he asks that the defendant corporation be restrained from further proceeding with the laying of the pipe line and from taking the water from Friends creek, as is alleged to be intended.

At Moscow, Idaho, three parties secured an injunction in the United States District court, restraining J. R. Melcher from using water from a spring on his property. The spring in question is about 35 ft. from a spring on the property of the plaintiffs, from which they secured water for domestic use in the town of Peck. The plaintiffs claim that their water supply ceased shortly after the defendant began using water from his spring, and that this was the cause of shortage in their supply. Melcher secured a State water right last spring. The injunction secured in July has just been disallowed by the court, because it was issued on complaint alone and two days after the summons. This the court says is contrary to the statutes, which lay down that the injunction must be secured at the time the summons is issued. The plaintiffs have secured a second injunction and submitted briefs with the briefs of the defendant. The decision, when rendered will be watched with more than usual interest, because attorneys in the case say that it will determine whether the session laws of 1903 of the State legislature in relation to securing waterrights is the only way by which the exclusive right to acquire the use of certain water for irrigation and other purposes may be obtained. The Federal court has granted an iniunction against the Norfolk. Va.. County Water company, prohibiting it from disconnecting the Jamestown Exnosition comoanv water mains and discontinuing the supply of water which is needed to protect the property of the exposition from fire. The order was Granted upon the petition of the receivers of tt'e Exposition comnanv, upon the plea that more than a million dollars’ worth of property was now located on the grounnr of the company, and that, unless water were supplied by the defendant corporation this property would be hazarded by extreme fire-risk. The water company is allowed to ask for a dissolution of the injunction, provided ten days’ notice to this effect is given the court. In the petition of the receivers, it is pointed out that an agreement was entered into by the water company to supply fourteen fireplugs inside the grounds, provided persons residing on the property of the exposition were prevented from securing water from the mains. While considering the proposition of the water company illegal and burdensome, the receivers say they entered into the agreement; but subsequently the water company violated its contract and stopped the supply of water altogether. The receivers contended that they are maintaining a fire department; but that, without water, this department is helpless. Not alone does the injunction compel the water company to supply water for fire protection, but for domestic purposes, also.