42 



To John J. Henry tuul liis associates to the iiunil)er of twenty-two, 

 who were the defendants in the case, were decreed the following 

 ([uantities: 



l)aic of aii|iropriation. 



Juno, 18li() 



Jnlv, IHtii; 



July, 18(18 



June, l.%9.... 

 October, isoy . 



1)0 



June, 1870 . . . . 

 April, 187'2.... 

 June, 1872 . . . . 



July, 1873 



July. 187r. 



April, 1877.... 



July, 1.S77 



May, 1878 



Do 



Do 



Do 



June, 1878 



Do 



April, 1881... 



July, 1881 



May, 188'> 



July, 1882 



Name of appropriator. 



John J. Henry and Edwin Hodgman. 



Henry Mon fortfU 



John J. Henry and Henry Hodgman. 



UaiKlolph W.'Brooks 



White Caldwell 



Josejih riunib 



William Welch 



do 



William Kent 



Henry Monforten 



S. M . Gowan 



James White 



John J. Henry 



Edwin Hodgman 



Charles Loyerich 



Joseph MeElroy 



Charles E. Hoy 



Joseph MeRey nolds 



John D. Huffine 



Charles Holmes (administrator) 



Randolph W. Brooks 



Charles E. Hoy 



Henry Monforten 



Statutory 

 inches. 



50 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 



75 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 200 

 100 

 120 

 120 

 250 

 100 

 100 

 125 

 100 

 100 

 100 



The water rights of ,lohn J. Henry and Henry Hodgman, which date 

 back to 1866 and include 150 inches (3.75 cubic feet per second in the 

 decision), formed the old Pen well right, and the court permitted Henry 

 and Hodgman to change the place of diversion from Lower Middle 

 Creek to one near the mouth of the canyon. 



Comment on the foregoing statement of facts seems unnecessary. 

 It tells the familiar story of heroic efforts to sul)due the desert and 

 maintain at the same time an action in court over a contested water 

 right. 



From 1801 to 1895, inclusive, a period of live years, the Middle 

 Creek Ditch Company levied in cash assessments $5,!^51).50. Tlie dis- 

 bur.sements of this sum are grouped under the following heads: 



For services of attorney ^-^j 1^)0. 00 



For court fees ^^^- -^^ 



For canal maintenaiu-c and repairs 7.'-)( . 20 



For niiscellaneons expensen ;'- -^'^S. 00 



T..tal 5,259.50 



The expenses in court fees are low, Ijccause the Middle Creek Ditch 

 Company won the suit and the other litigants paid the greater part of 

 the costs. The writer has no opportunity to ascertain accurately the 

 aggregate cost to all the litigants. It is safe to say that if all the 

 los.ses in time and money incurred by the irrigators of this stream in 

 defending their rights to water were reckoned, the sum would reach 

 $13,000. 



