The Week's News

No case ha9 ever been tried in the Washtenaw circuit court which has involved more properly value than the Cornwell-Swift case, the value of the property on both cides of the caee being placed at $175,000. And no case has been harder fought or more stubbornly contested than this one, as it took 21 days to put in the evidence. The attorneys in the case were Messrs. Whitman and Thompson for (he complainants, and Sawyer & Knowlton and Lawrence for tbe defendants. The case was argued on Jan. 27 by the attorneys, and Judge Kinne rendered a partial decisión on Saturday. The decisión is n favor of Swift, aa far as it goes, but is h irdly satisfactory to either side and the mpreme court will without doubt be asked to pass upon the case. The history of the case is a-t follows : In 1886, the Cornwell Manufacturing Co. built a dam across the river, and erected a pulp mili, jut above the fir&t rai!road bridge, west of the city. The water from the lower dam would bacL and interfere with the running of the wheel at CornweHV-, and in Maren, 1887, suit was brought against John M. Swift, Mary E. Loomis, Lucy S. Bourns, John Finnegan and H. Stormt, to compel them to lower the boards on their dam to a height of two feet and six inche. The defendatits in their answer began a counter-suit, clairaing that the Cornwell dam was built on the natural water from their dam and that they hatl the right to carry five feet of flash-boards. They asked that the complainants be compelled to remove their dam and that damages be awarded the defendants. From Judge Kinne's decisión, the following is taken : . "The defendants have rights which they have ecjoyed lor over half a century, and on which manufacturing plants aggregating $75,000 in value have been built. Among the privileges of the defendants was the right to maintain their dam at a certain height, which caused the waters of the rïver to set back above said dam for a distance of between one and two miles. NotwitiiPtand n tliis the complainants erected their dam entirely within the mili pond of the defendauts, resulting greatly to the daniage of the property of the defendantB. It is difficult to understand the temerity with which the complainants have invaded the rights of the defendants. Tke weight of evidence being to this effect, the relief asked for by the complainants is denied." In regard to the relief asked for by the defendants in their answer and cross bill, Judge Kinne denied their request to have the Cornwell dam removed and entered the folio wing decree: ''Tue o tndants at no time shal! maintaiu ihe il ishing structure upon the said dam hiu r than is adequate, necessary and unai. able to the reasonable and proper use ot iheir mili privileges as now consituted and established, and when in low stages of the water an increased height may be necessary, such increased height shall at no time exceed the four feet above the apron of their dam, and they shall at all times so manipúlate the said mili pond as to cause the least possible inconvenience to the complainants in the way of back-water, consistent with their own necessities:" 'The complainants shall have the right to maintain their dam as at present erected and used, and to enjoy and propel their machinery as established and used since 188&; they shall manage and manipúlate the said mili pond in a fair and reasonable manner, consistent with the rules, needs, and customs of mili ownerf, with the view to giving the defendants as uniform and steady a supply of water au possible, consistent, with their own necessities ; they shall not unreasonably or unnecessarily detain the water in their said mili pond, nor discharge the same in unreasonable or unnecessarily large quantities, but their interruption and discharge of the water thall be such as is necessary and unavoi'lable and requisite to the proper use and enjoyment of their mili privileges as before declared." From the testimony ia relation to the amount of damages to which the defendants are entilled, Judge Kinne was unable to decide, and he has ordered the case to be re-opened on Monday, Feb. 24, for the purpose cf hearing any further testimony that either party may have in relation to the damages, and to hear a re-argument of the case on this point.