33

of the company and in the conversation he said, "We know that you have always used that late water, but we want to use it now" - feeling of course that the water had been turned over to the company, and they had a right to use it as they pleased. Our attorney, Henry D. Moyle, advised us to make another attempt to settle the matter out of court, and we offered to leave the matter in the hands of Franklin D. Richards, who had been legal advisor for the water company for many years, and abide by his decision. The president of the company refused to accept the proposal.

The immediate cause of the suit was: The Water Company had taken the water and were using it in other places, where in the fact it was doing but very good and they threatened to take the water from us the following year. One of them told Bro. John Wallace that inasmuch as he was a renter, they would let him have some water to mature his crops, but that he would have to secure some water elsewhere if he rented another year. We had used the water on this land and other land of the Clark farm as long as I could remember. So we had to enjoin them from interfering with the water. The judge of the District Court ruled in our favor, giving us control of all the water rising in the creek from the highway to our farms. The Water Company appealed to the Supreme Court, which made some restrictions, but in the main was in our favor. Such untruths as were testified to, I hope never to hear again from men who had a reputation of being honest men. It is really surprising what some men will do to gain their point, but we have got along pretty well since. Sometimes a change of officers is a good thing. I have had other suits, sometimes in the interests of the water company when I was a director, but never till we had exhausted every other means of settlement did we resort to the courts.