40 



canA'on, had diverted the greater part of the flow of the stream, caus- 

 ing- it to become drj^ at times above the mouth of the supplj^ ditch. 



A decision was rendered by Judge Wade in October, 1883, in which 

 h(> decreed 2,415 miner's inches to the twenty-two plaintitl's and tt-lS 

 miner's inches to the thirty-nine defendants. Little benefit resulted 

 to any of the interested parties from this suit. It was a futile attempt 

 to adjudicate priorities l)etween a certain number of claimants and to 

 exclude others who had valid rights to the stream, but were neither 

 plaintitl's nor defendants. 



The Upper Middle Creek Company was maintained until 1886, when 

 it was changed to a corporation under the name of the Upper Middle 

 Creek Supply Ditch Company. This company was succeeded in Jan- 

 uary, 1890, by the present Middle Creek Ditch Company. 



On July 15, 1890, the contract of 1871 was annulled by the consent 

 of all parties in interest, and a new arrangement was made where! )y 

 the supply ditch with its water right was deeded to the lower Middle 

 Creek appropriators by the Middle Creek Ditch Company in exchange 

 for water rights on Middle Creek. 



In 1889-90 the Middle Creek Ditch Company renewed the contest 

 against the upper irrigators which was begun l)y John M. Robinson 

 and his associates in 1883. This suit was known a; the Middle Creek 

 Ditch Company v. John J. Henry et al. There were in all twenty- 

 two defendants, who had settled on bench lands near the mouth of the 

 canyon, and had diverted water from Middle Creek for irrigation 

 purposes for the most part subsequent to 1870. 



More than two years elapsed between the time of issuing a writ of 

 injunction against the defendants and the beginning of the trial. On 

 July 9, 1889, the defendants were restrained from interfering with 

 the waters of Middle Creek and on November 27, 1891, the trial 

 began. There were so man}^ witnesses to examine that the case occu- 

 pied the time of the court for a period of twenty-three days. 



April 22, 1892, the court rendered a decision, holding that when 

 the lower claimants entered into the contract of 1871 for a con- 

 sideration they abandoned all right and interest in the natural 

 flow of Middle Creek. This ruling was extremely adverse to the 

 Middle Creek Ditch Company, inasmuch as it changed the date of 

 appropiiation of nearly one-half of the flow of its canal from the 

 years 18G1, 1805, 18(>(), and 18(;7 to a time subsetiuent to 1871. The 

 plaintitf company then moved for a new trial, and the motion being 

 denied the case was appealed to the supreme court of the State. 

 By a decision rendered April 1. 1895, the supreme court reversed the 

 ruling of the lower court in excluding certain evidence and remanded 

 the case for a new trial. 



So, after nearly six years of litigation the litigants began to realize 

 that little had been done toward a linal settlement of their claims 



