67 
En this second triaU before the Larimer County court the Handy 
Company still contended thai thai courl had jurisdiction and showed 
that, acting under the law of l s 7'.». proceedings were begun in that 
court by the appointment of a referee and the taking of considerable 
evidence prior to the institution of proceedings under the law of L881 
by tin 1 Boulder County court. On this point, however, tin- Larimer 
County court held, in view of the decision of the supreme courl in the 
previous case, that the Handy Company, being a party to the ] >n>< •<•«■. I- 
ings before the courl of Boulder County and having acquiesced in 
the same, were bound by it< decrees. 'The supreme court affirmed the 
decision of the lower court, and the four years having elapsed within 
which to begin proceedings before the Boulder court, this phase of the 
case ended. 
SECOND SERIES OF CONTESTS. 
In the meantime, however, the Handy Company, anticipating the 
adverse decision, sought to remedy their misfortune by taking advan- 
tage of the condition of the decrees and to turn to their benefit what 
had been an injustice to them. They therefore purchased, an old ditch 
and the land under it. abandoned the irrigation of the land, and sought 
to transfer the water. This proceeding inaugurated the second series 
of contests, the interests of the contestants, however, being the reverse 
of that in the first series. It now became vital for the Handy Com- 
pany to uphold and maintain the justice and validity of the decrees 
and for the north side ditches practically to break and set aside the 
decree-. 
The Handy Company, in view of the court decisions in the first 
cases, had rather the better of the situation, while its adversaries were 
in something of a dilemma from this cause. They, however, avoided 
the real issue by admitting the correctness and validity of thedecrees, 
but contended that immediately after and ever since the decree was 
issued the use of the water had been abandoned in whole or in part: 
that the area irrigated was small, and on account of increasing seepage 
had constantly grown less since the time of the decree. Much evidence 
was introduced by both sides to -how the amount of water required 
for such lands. The evidence introduced by the Handy Company was 
very similar to that given before the referee when the decrees were 
rendered, not only in regard to the ditch in question, but for the very 
ditches constituting the opposition. 
The evidence of the opposition was in direct and glaring contrast to 
that given by them in obtaining decrees, and the only reason it did not 
react on themselves was that sine* 1 the adjudication they had so enlarged 
their canals and so extended the use of the water that the full amount 
decreed was in time used. On the other hand, there was no enlarge- 
ment or extended use of the ditch in question. 
