upr000289 4

| $ l u b b y U a l l e y J l r v i y a t t o t t Q u m t p a t t y IN' CORPORATKD A 1 ^ S . P . L . A. & S . L . R . R . C&YERTON, IsTEVADA Los A n g e le s , C a la . Oct. 13, 1915. le y I r r t l a t L r o o S p a n r ^ f i S o m ^ o u r ^ h e L ^ r i o r t w o Psuit s“ Updedny dVinagl “ the Muddy R iver i t s and uid Holmes, v; Co. vs 1 , p .b efo re the courts in which vour rip-btc, + ~ + >,« " " I g o ? r the proceedure the to a lso l e t you know what f £ 5 ^ S S l S t t ? e v;aters o f K r iv e r , and holders in aid in g g et it s a ffo ? | ny• expec.ts jfe y °u> as one o f i t s stoc; ypoousri tiroignh ttso* go into clu^t Pp ?ooppefrriyir ianndd ntthhear^e\by fc?u?l liyth partoj tei lc tw iU be i n W W. M«^Kear nevU* s ta Wp P6 * the f i r s t is that of Knox the. S&cond. one is' th a t^ f^ th e Moapa ‘ a n d ^ I it ' l ^ r pCor^riiss^on er> and K e a rn e y state-E n gin eer and L. | | § lr he Engineer and Commissioner are enjoined by the Court from en terin g ing t-ne iiov/ of water from the Rever *in «to« * t»h eir headgateSs t ohr od^itschg eSsf a t - tS a o f 8 ” t0 take fr0m the » » * : o f t L water ?toy d e ilr e p ,vpr VlZ ?n?i n t i f f ?uin the f l r s t su it are e n tit le d to water from the th e ir c l - i S s ^ r e ?nihan sev enty~ei.ght. acres; while in th e ir complaint second s u it is e n + i+ i^ f f °Uf hundred acres; the P l a i n t i f f in the hundred aid tp waJ®r from the r iv e r fo r not more than a huhdred l i d fn tu r ® t le re s * , l n i t s complaint i t s claims are fo r e ig h t +addr®d+ nd f o r ty acres, thus you see, the water claimed bv these on P r 1®S * n access o f What we b e lie v e to be th e ir law ful r ig h t 0 equeals about one-fourth o f the e n tire flow o f t h e R iv e r . S ' „ U ine company s attorn eys advise the D irecto rs to supply the State s e S i i t i l y le t h l t eb?aiX d i i den-+ ^ith WhiCh t0 flS h t eac^P° f these cases, S t I f the n§ 1S p osslb le a s a tis fa c to r y s e t t le - atHnbd spttoLCkKMhollddeinrsl d f , thq gCSom panhy a?th/ ana t wao umldu chb e lepsoss sciboslet ai nf d thexe peCnomsep antoy °u it Thev warn llhk *m d6r+ sh°uld entervene or becomeparties to the P l a i n t i f f o f ect ° r s > however, that i t is very probable the ers as p a rtie s HPSkSf'i,1??8 mf yVJGt name the c °mpany and i t s stockhold­tehr ®e CrroinuSrtt ri?t+sQePlifi, uithpoI n i t s aowndn mhaovtei onth, emm aby roduo ghsot ; inthtoe y cfouurrtth, ero r atdhvaiste ITe t o ihr th S sabisfacatro ryn 0st ebttrloeumSehnt t ino f hyth e questitohne mp alav,i nptoisfsf ii boly? not be had under the decision s that w i l l be given bv the Court in the pending cases , and th at, in the event o f s§ch con tlm en cv the Company wouW then be under the n e c e s s r V o f i t s e l f 1 S n “ ng a