WATERWORKS LITIGATION.
OAKLAND, CAL.
在奥克兰,加利福尼亚州,禁令程序instituted by the Contra Costa Water company to prevent the Realty syndicate and Frank M. Smith from diverting water from Sausal creek, which rises in the foothills back of Piedmont, flows through Fruitvale and empties into San Leandro bay near the tidal canal. The water company also asks $100,000 damages for water alleged to have been diverted during the last three years. As each of the corporations is backed by millions of dollars, a long and hard-fought legal battle is anticipated. It is alleged by the water company that it acquired riparian rights along Sausal creek and constructed the Sausal dam in 1872, for the purpose of storing water to be distributed in Oakland. Having been in open and notorious possession of the water rights for more than thirty years, the water company claims it has acquired a good title against the world. It has been diverting the water from the creek through a seven-inch pipe, under pressure of thirty pounds to the square inch, and having a capacity of 600,000 gallons in twenty-four hours. When there has been plenty of water in the creek, the company has diverted only enough to fill the pipe. When there was not water enough to fill the pipe, all the water in the stream has been diverted. During the last three years, it is alleged, the Realty syndicate and F. M. Smith have laid pipes and constructed five dams and three tunnels to divert the waters of the creek above Sattsal dam, which is 525 feet south of the junction of the two main forks of the stream. It is alleged that the Realty syndicate and Smith have been diverting the water to lands that arc not riparian to the stream, and have been diminishing the source of supply of the water company. A permanent injunction is asked by the water company, in addition to $100,000 for the water already diverted.
CEDAK EAPIDS, IA., AND SIOUX FALLS, S. D.
Washington, D. C., dispatch says that the writ of error in the case of the Cedar Rapids Water company vs. The City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, has been dismissed by the Supreme Court of the United States. The case originated in att effort on the part of the water company to have an ordinance of the city fixing water rates declared invalid. The Supreme Court of the United States also dismissed the appeal of the Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company of New York and others in their case against the city of Sioux Falls, S. Dak. The case involved the right of the city to purchase or construct waterworks
LEWISTON, MONT.
The case of Theresa McDonald against R. S. Hamilton and others, involving the right to the waters of a certain spring, tributary to the Stinking Water creek, near the South Moccasins, has been decided in the District court. A verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff in all the issues involved. In addition to the right to the water, the jury found that the plaintiff was entitled to damages in the sum ot $100 because of the water having been diverted by the defendants.
DENVER, COLO.
I he attorney for the Denver Union Water company, and the city attorney of Denver, Colo., have been notified by the Supreme court that it will not entertain another motion to postpone the long pending suit for the adjustment of water rates. The suit has been set for oral argument November 15. and the court urges the attorneys to be ready on that date. This case was begun in 1898. The city lost in the District court, and it was appealed to the Supreme court, where it was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The court of Appeals took jurisdiction, and finally it got back into the Supreme court, when the two courts wercconsolidated.
WASHINGTON, N. J.
Vice Chancellor Emery has granted an injunction in the proceedings of the borough of Washington. N. J., against the Washington Water company. The latter had threatened to cut off the water from the fire hydrants unless the common council paid $1,600, which was at the rate of $800 per year for water used from July I. 1903, to July 1, 1905. The court has fixed the price at $600.
