boxes must be so constructed that water can be readily measured therein.

"All water is to be measured at the point where it is taken from the main creek and above the main wagon road running from the "Smiley Home" in front of the "Henry House."

"By an inch of water, whenever used in this stipulation, it is understood that quantity of water which will flow under a 6-inch. pressure through an orifice one inch square."

No provision appears to have been made by the court for the enforcement of the decrees rendered. Each party was left to obtain his rights under the decree by any means available and in case of illegal distribution contempt proceedings would be necessary to prove the alleged conditions and the expense and trouble in doing this is often greater than the value of the water.

A Court should take into account in a case of this kind the great distances often between farms whose lands are irrigated from the same stream and the impossibility of one of the users of water, particularly a lower user, being able to keep himself informed concerning the conditions of use on the other farms on the same stream. The lower users are generally robbed by the upper ones and they have no adequate means of protecting themselves, even after the litigation. and decrees as in the above cases.

It would be possible for a Court to provide for the selection of a person each year who should distribute the water to the different users in accordance with their respective rights. Provision should be made for his fair compensation and he should be required to furnish bonds for the faithful performance of his duties.

HUMBOLDT COUNTY.

One of the most noted cases ever tried in Nevada concernig water was the case of Bliss vs. Grayson. The suit was brought by G. D. Bliss against G. W. Grayson, J. P. Anderson, William Dunphy and a number of others. Nearly all, if not all, the parties to this suit were diverting water from the IIumboldt River in Eureka and Lander Counties for the irrigation of their lands.

The suit was commenced July 8, 1889, and was finally concluded in the lower court December 11, 1897, by an order denying a motion for a new trial. The case went to the Supreme Court, from which a decision was handed down in January, 1899, reversing the order denying a new trial and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

In this trial it was claimed by Bliss that he was the owner of 5,000 acres of land, through which flowed the Humboldt River. He claimed the right to divert 20,000 inches of the water of the river measured under a 4-inch pressure for the irrigation of these lands. He claimed to have been in possession of these lands and of the right to use these

waters for more than twenty years, through the use of the water by his predecessors in interest and himself. He claimed that this use had. been continuous until March or April, 1889, when the defendants, by means of dams and obstructions, diverted the water from the stream, and the court was asked to abate the nuisance and enjoin the defendants from diverting the waters from the stream.

Grayson on his part denied the allegations of the complaint and claimed rights acquired through appropriation and use antedating the filing of this suit; rights that were initiated during the years 1874 to 1884.

The action was dismissed in the case of all the original defendants except three-G. W. Grayson, J. P. Anderson and William Dunphythe three largest users. It was, however, shown that the other defendants, concerning whom the action was dismissed, were maintaining dams in the channel of the Humboldt River and were diverting water from the river at the times alleged by Bliss; that Grayson, Anderson and Dunphy were diverting all the waters of the river without the consent of Bliss and to the damage of the latter.

The findings of fact were to the effect that Bliss had acquired the right to use 14,000 inches of the water of the river for the irrigation of his lands. The lands that had been watered by Bliss amounted to about 1,500 acres, upon which wild hay and other crops were grown. The Court evidently believed that the evidence showed that the amount of water named, 14,000 inches, was necessary to irrigate that particular 1,500 acres of land.

The Court held that this right was prior to that of Grayson, Anderson and Dunphy, and decreed that they should be restrained from maintaining dams and obstructions in the channel of the river and diverting water to the damage of the plaintiff.

In commenting on this case the Supreme Court says in part as follows:

"It will be observed that the respondent sought by his complaint to have the dams and obstructions, maintained in the Humboldt River by the appellants and their co-defendants, abated as nuisances, the diversion of the waters thereby enjoined, based upon an alleged violation or invasion of his rights to the use of 20,000 inches of said water for certain beneficial purposes, under prior appropriation and use alleged to have been for many years adverse to the appellants and their co-defendants. The separate answers of the appellants and their co-defendants in effect deny all the material averments of the complaint and affirmatively show rights to the use of specific quantities of the waters of said stream under prior appropriation thereof for beneficial purposes, and ask the court to find and decree to each the specific quantity claimed for the purpose claimed and in the manner claimed.

"It is further shown by the supplemental answer of the appellants and the co-defendant, Dunphy, that certain of the other defendants to the action, as to whom the action was dismissed claimed, each for himself, certain specified quantities of water, by appropriation, for beneficial purposes, which rights were subordinate to the rights of the answering defendants; that the defendants were, at the time of the alleged invasion of the respondent's right, and ever since have been diverting the water. It is shown by the answer of John R. Bradley and George Russell, and by the answers of a number of other defendants, that each was maintaining obstructions and dams in the river above the lands of the respondent, by which each was diverting the waters under a claim of right to do so, alleged to be superior to the respondent's right. In other words, it is shown by the verified pleadings of the appellants, and some of their co-defendants, that each was diverting the waters of the river in the manner alleged, for beneficial purposes, under claim of right to do so by appropriation and use. Before the decision was rendered, and after the trial, it appears from the record that the court, by order, dismissed all the defendants from the action except these appellants and Jennie C. and Carmen W. Dunphy, executrices, over the objection of the appellants, and they assign this action of the Court as one of the grounds of error.

"The court, in its findings and decision, treated the action as one to abate and enjoin a nuisance. It is clearly shown by the answers of the defendants that, at the time of the wrongful diversion, each was maintaining dams and obstructions in the Humboldt River, and thereby diverting its water, under claim of right to the same for beneficial purposes by actual appropriation. The evidence without. dispute shows that some of the defendants to whom the order of the court applied were, at the time of the diversion complained of, holding back and diverting a large volume of the water of the river by means of dams and obstructions, erected and maintained above the lands of the respondent, but there is absolutely no showing that such dams and obstructions were maintained and such diversion thereby made under claim of right to do so by appropriation or otherwise, of any of the waters of the river, for any beneficial purpose whatever, as against either the claim of the respondent or of the appellants. Not only is it shown by the answers of these defendants and by the undisputed testimony adduced on the trial, that they were, at the time. of the alleged diversion, and in the manner alleged, holding back and diverting the waters without any apparent right thereto, but the respondent's complaint in specific terms so charges.

"Under the statute it is the peremptory duty of the Court to bring in all parties, whose interests would be affected by the decision, as defendants to the action. And it was manifestly an error to dismiss the action against any of them.

"The only reasonable enjoyment or use to which the appellants' dams could be devoted or put was for those purposes for which they were constructed, and had been so long used, and were then being used and enjoyed, and such use and reasonable enjoyment were lawful and did not, under the law, constitute the same a nuisance.

"Many objections are urged against the findings of the Court, but we do not deem it necessary to consider all. A reference to the findings as set out in this opinion shows that the Court found, in direct terms, that the appellants and their co-defendants, Jennie C. and Carmen W. Dunphy, executrices, diverted all the waters of the Humbodlt River during the times complained of. This finding is clearly against the evidence. It is shown as an undisputed fact, that the defendant, Blossom, and other defendants diverted a large volume of the water of the river during said time, above the respondent's lands, by means of dams and other obstructions, maintained below the lands of Grayson, and no showing whatever was made of any claim or right to make such diversions, as against the respondent or appellant.

"A very serious question is raised as to the finding of the Court that 14,000 inches of water were necessary to irrigate respondent's land. * * * *

"The order denying appellant's motion for a new trial will be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance herewith."

The opinion was rendered by Justice Massey, Justice Belknap concurring, Chief Justice Bonnifield dissenting, (24 Nev. 422-461).

This case never came to trial again; it was in the courts ten years. Each point was contested with all the skill and ability that able counsel could command. The cost has been conservatively estimated at $50,000, and the case ends where it began, with nothing accomplished. Not a single person's right was defined. The suit was commenced at a time when the law of 1889 was in force and it might have been made the basis for the determination of all the rights of the irrigators from the Humboldt River between Beowawe and Golconda. It is, however, a cause for gratification that the judgment as given was reversed by the Supreme Court, for a finding of 14,000 inches of water to supply 1,500 acres of land would have been so excessive as to have been a great hardship upon all the adjacent appropriators. It would, too, if allowed to stand, have been a mischievous example exerting its influence upon succeeding litigation.

A case was tried in 1876, which is known as the case of J. W. Brown vs. L. A. Ashley. The action was brought to recover damages for the alleged wrongful diversion of the water of Coyote Creek for a decree entitling the plaintiff to the use of the water and an injunetion restraining the defendant from diverting or using the water. The judgment and decree rendered gave all the waters of the creek to the plaintiff, except that the defendant may use such portion of the waters as may be necessary for domestic purposes but not for irrigation.

In 1879 a similar case was brought between the same parties over the same stream. The court found that the defendant, during

the years 1877, 1878 and 1879, wrongfully and unlawfully diverted. some of the waters of Coyote Creek and used the same to irrigate his land and thereby prevented said waters from flowing down upon the lands of the plaintiff as they otherwise would have done. The Court in its findings of fact states that the defendant did not divert the waters of the said creek except during the freshet seasons of said years and during that portion of the dry seasons of said years, when if not diverted by the defendants said waters would have been absorbed by said soil and atmosphere before they reached the lands of said plaintiff, and that the volume of water was not by the acts of the defendant so diminished as in any manner to deprive plaintiff of sufficient water to irrigate the crop growing on his lands and for all domestic purposes.

In the second case judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for one dollar damages and a decree was entered substantially the same as in the former action, and the defendant was enjoined "from ever hereafter diverting or obstructing in any manner any of said waters of said creek from the natural channel thereof, so as to prevent said waters, or any portion thereof, from flowing down to, or upon, the plaintiff's lands."

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court.

The case of Lawrence et al. vs. John Bymer was brought to recover damages for the wrongful diversion of the waters of Cottonwood Creek by defendants and for an injunction. The judgment of the Court was that the action should be dismissed at the cost of the plaintiffs and it was so ordered.

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court. In all the cases cited damages for wrongful diversion were sought by the plaintiff's and injunctions restraining the defendants from diverting water. In no case was there sought the real adjudication and determination of the rights of the contending parties.

Where the litigation occurred concerning the waters of tributaries of the Humboldt River, it does not seem to have occurred to the litigants, or to the Court, that appropriators from the main stream below the junction of this tributary with the river had certain rights to the use of this water that demanded consideration.

LOVELOCK VALLEY LITIGATION.

Lovelock Valley lies at the western side of Humboldt County and is the valley into which the Humboldt River drains. The river empties into Humboldt Lake and there evaporates. Six main ditches are taken from the river in Lovelock Valley. The upper, or most eastern of these ditches in point of diversion, is known as the Young