THE IBBIOATION AGE. 



275 



EFFECT OF WYOMING STATUTE ON APPROPRIATION. 



Act Wyo. Ter. March 11, 1886 (Laws 1886, p. 294, e. 61), 

 provide that one claiming a water right shall file in the office 

 of the clerk of the proper county and in the office of the 

 clerk of the district a notice of such claim, and that in any 

 controversy concerning water rights no evidence shall be 

 received in behalf of any claimant until such statement or 

 claim is filed by him. Held, that such act was not intended 

 to provide an exclusive method of appropriation ; its only 

 effect being to take from an appropriator who failed to file 

 such notice the right to claim an appropriation prior to the 

 time when the water was actually supplied and used. 



Bean v. Morris. Circuit Court of Appeals, 159 Federal 

 651. 



APPROPRIATION OF EXPENSE OF SURVEY. 



Where the court, under section 37, Act March 11, 1903 

 (Sess. Laws 1903, p. 250), orders a survey by the state engi- 

 neer of the ditches and canals diverting water from a stream, 

 and of the irrigable lands thereunder, and of those to which 

 water has been applied, and the making of maps thereof, the 

 cost of such survey is properly chargeable to the several 

 litigants in the case in proportion to the quantity of water 

 allotted to each. In such case it is proper for the court to 

 make the apportionment and order judgment against each 

 according to the amount properly apportioned to such 

 litigant, and it is unnecessary for any one to file a cost bill 

 covering such item of expense. 



Farmers Co-Operative Ditch Vo. v. Riverside Irr. Dist. 

 Supreme Court of Idaho, 94 Pacific 761. 



DOCTRINE OF "RELATION BACK/' 



Two persons began the construction of irrigation ditches 

 before the enactment of the statute regulating the appro- 

 priating of water. One of them commenced two ditches about 

 September 1, 1882, and September 5, 1882, respectively, and 

 prosecuted the work with reasonable diligence to completion 

 and the actual using of water. The other person commenced 

 his ditch not later than October 1, 1882, and also prosecuted 

 the work with reasonable diligence until water was brought 

 through it. His ditch was completed before either of the 

 other ditches. Held, that the one who began work on the 

 two ditches in September had the prior right, though his 

 ditches were not first completed, since under the doctrine of 

 "relation back" which obtained before the enactment of the 

 statute, as between two persons digging ditches at the same 

 time and prosecuting work thereon, with reasonable diligence, 

 to completion, the one who first began work had the prior 

 right though the other completed his ditch first. 



Wright v. Cruse. Supreme Court of Montana, 95 Pacific 

 370. 



PROCEEDING TO ADJUDICATE PRIORITY. 



In a proceeding supplemented to an original statutory 

 proceeding for the adjudication of water rights, petitioner 

 alleged an additional application of water so that its appro- 

 priation then aggregated the number of cubic feet specified, 

 and prayed a supplemental decree covering this additional 

 application and allowing a priority therefor dated as of the 

 commencement of its canal. Demurrers on the ground that 

 the petition did not state a cause of action were sustained, 

 and a decree entered dismissing the petition without prejudice 

 to petitioner's right to institute proceedings regarding* any 

 right claimed by it, and not antedating or conflicting with any 

 of the various rights theretofore adjudicated by the decrees 

 in the adjudication of priorities for the use of water thereto- 

 fore had. Thereafter petitioner filed another petition, all the 

 facts of which pertaining to petitioner's right had been stated 

 in the prior petition and in practically the same form, in- 

 volving the same subject-matter and identical issues and par- 

 ties, and a decree was prayed allowing a priority dating as 

 of the commencement of its canal. Held that, though peti- 

 tioner was given permission to bring a new proceeding to 

 adjudicate a proper priority for such new application of 

 water, the decree was res judicata of petitioner's right to 

 claim its priority as dating from the commencement of its 

 canal. 



Laguna Canal Co. v. Rocky Ford Ditch Co. Supreme 

 Court of Colorado, 95 Pacific 287. 



FENCE MACHINE. 



Field-built fence is acknowledged by the best authori- 

 ties and all those who have given it any thought, to be 

 far superior to any factory fence ever produced. It 

 fits the ground exactly, and every wire sustains its 

 exact share of the tension. The expense of weaving 

 fence on the posts, with the Perfection Fence Machine, 

 is very little more than the cost of erecting factory 

 fence. By the Perfection method, a saving of lOc 

 per rod can be accomplished, and a better fence pro- 

 duced. 



The method is simple. The lateral wires are 

 stretched up and fastened at the one end with an auto- 

 matic ratchet tension. This device automatically allows 

 the wire to feed out just rapidly enough to allow for 

 twisting the cables when weaving in the stays. When 

 the lateral wires are strung, the weaving process is a 

 matter of turning the crank on the machine and feed- 

 ing the stays into an automatic picket dropper, with 

 which every machine is equipped. One man and a boy 



Leader Fence Machine Ready for Work. 



can easily build 100 rods per day, which is as much 

 as the average two men will erect of factory fence. 



Any weight of wire can be used for the laterals 

 and stays. The stays can be set any distance apart, 

 and the lateral wires spaced to suit conditions. If you 

 have a Perfection Automatic Fence Machine, and a 

 little smooth wire on hand, a fence adapted to any pur- 

 pose is a matter of only a few hours. 



This money-saving device is manufactured by the 

 Leader Fence Co., St. Charles, 111. The cost is within 

 the pocketbook of every one. This company is looking 

 for some live agents to represent them in new territory. 



ROBERT McF. DOBLE 



:CIVIL AND IRRIGATION ENGINEER = 



Surveys, Plans, Estimates, Exam- 

 inations, Reports and Supervision 



Majestic Building 



DENVER, COLORADO 



