IRRIGATION INVESTIGATION'S ON CACHE CREEK. 177 



up the Gordon and Harbin deeds to Moore, claiming under these deeds the exclusive 

 right "to all the waters that did or could run in Cache Creek," as against the Cache- 

 ville people who were on the Harbin grant and whose deeds were of later date than 

 Moore's right of way deed from Harbin. It is interesting to look back at the Harbin 

 deed in this connection to see what it realh- did convey. (See quotation on p. 172.) 



The defendant denies the complaint of the plaintiff and avers, among other 

 things — 



That in 1856 the defendant had constructed a dam, ditch, and headgate of suffi- 

 cient capacity to carry all the waters of Cache Creek except when swollen bj- winter 

 rains; 



That in 1863 and 1864 the defendant had cleaned and enlarged this ditch to about 

 the capacity originally intended, and that now his ditch carried no more water than 

 it was originally intended to carrj'. 



November 11, 1871, judgment was rendered in this case in favor of the Cache- 

 ville Company. The findings are too long to be quoted here, but the conclusion is as 

 follows: 



As conclusions of the law the court finds: 



(1) That the defendant jointly with one F. W. Fratt is first entitled to divert 2.43 cubic feet of 

 the water of Cache Creek per second. 



(2) That the plaintiff is next entitled at all times to divert from the said Cache Creek a quantity 

 of water equal to the capacity of its ditch. 



(3) That the capacity of the plaintiff's ditch is that quantity of water which would flow through 

 it when for two-thirds of the length of the ditch from its upper end it is of the size of 15 feet in width 

 on the bottom, 4i feet deep, with a slope at the sides outward from the bottom of 1§ feet to each foot 

 in height and a grade of three-eighths inches to each 100 feet in length, and the remaining third in 

 length of said ditch is of the size of 10 feet in width on the bottom, 5} feet deep with a slope at the 

 sides outward from the bottom of IJ feet to each foot in height, and a grade of 1 inch tg each 100 feet 

 in length. 



(4) That the plaintiff is entitled to a decree perpetually restraining the defendant and all persona 

 claiming or to claim by, through, or under it since the commencement of the action, and its officers, 

 agents, and employees from diverting more than 2.43 cubic feet per second of the water of said creek 

 unless at such times as there may l)e more water flowing in said creek than would supply the said 2.43 

 cubic feet per second and fill the plaintiff's ditch to its full capacity, as hereinbefore set out. 



(5) That plaintiff is further entitled to a judgment for $10 damages accrued before the com- 

 mencement of this action, and the costs and disbursements by it in this action. 



And it is so ordered. 



T. B RiORDAX, 



Districl Judge of tlie Fourteenth Judicial District, 



premdinfi at the request of, etc. 

 Attest: 



W. B. Brown, Clerk. 



The motion for a new trial was denied. On January 22, 1873, the case was 

 appealed. October 30, 1874, the supreme court of California rendered judgment 

 reversing the findings of the lower courts and remanding the case with instruction 

 to the lower court to render judgment for the Woodland Company, pursuant to the 

 specific prayer of the answer. October 31, 1874, the district judge rendered judg- 

 ment as ordered, with costs for the defendants ^312.65. The Cacheville Agricultural 

 Ditch Companjr went out of business. The ditch, being useless and an obstruction 



23856— No. 100—01 12 



