THE STONY CREEK WATER WARS
Glenn County - Tehama County - Colusa County , California.
(c) 2009, Mike Barkley
Transcript, Last Special Master Hearing
[A transcription of the document on file in the Angle Archives
Important because this was the last hearing in the case and shows the
gloss that was being completed on riparian issues.
The transcription was made first by optically scanning through Textbridge
software, and then cleaning it up. This transcript was unusually crisp for
Angle transcripts, and made OCR scanning much easier, still there may be
some subtle errors from the conversion.
This is in straight text with minimal HTML formatting. Any
editorial comments by me are contained within brackets, "[]", which you
may delete easily after downloading the "page source" to your own editing
software if your browser allows source downloading. ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[cover]
IN THE NORTHERN DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND
DIVISION
BEFORE: GEORGE E. McCUTCHEN, Esq., Special Master in Chancery.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs
H.C. ANGLE, et al.,
Defendants.
IN EQUITY
No. 30.
[handwritten] Vol. 27
Hearing at Willows, California,
Wednesday September 18, 1929
-----
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiff:
[crossed out] D.M. Parmenter, Assistant Attorney-General, Department of
Justice, Washington, D.C.
[crossed out] G.A. Iverson, Special Assistant to Attorney General,
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
Oliver P. Morton, Special Assistant to Attorney General, Department
of Justice, 721 Taft Building, Los Angeles, California.
Richard J. Coffey, United States Bureau of Reclamation, Berkeley,
California.
For the Defendants:
R.M. Rankin, Willows, California
H.W. McGowan, Willows, California
R.H. Brownell, Orland, California
[inside cover]
IN THE NORTHERN DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,
SECOND DIVISION
Before: George E. McCutchen, Esq., Special Master in Chancery.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs
H.C. ANGLE, et al.,
Defendants.
IN EQUITY
No. 30.
Hearing at Willows, California,
Wednesday September 18, 1929
-----
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiff:
Oliver P. Morton, Esq.
Richard J. Coffey, Esq.
For the Defendants:
R.M. Rankin, Esq.
H.W. McGowan, Esq.
p. 1
MR. MCCUTCHEN: Are you gentlemen ready to go ahead/ [sic] Lets get started on this
hearing, which was noticed to allow anyone to put in any further evidence
they desired, and. particularly to take up the Petition of George W. Sutliff,
- to present some evidence and also the application of Plaintiff to reopen
the hearing for a matter on several points. I think perhaps we better take
up the Sutliff matter first.
MR. McGOWAN: I neglected to bring out the substitution but I will file
that later.
MR. MCCUTCHEN: That will be filed with the Clerk of this Court I assume.
MR. MCGOWAN: I will state I am representing Bruce H. Sutliff, et al., in the
place and stead of Richard Belcher, who was their original solicitor of
record, and the defendants are Bruce H. Sutliff, Ellis A. Sutliff, Emily A.
Sutliff, G. W. Sutliff, and Laura Bell Griffith. I am presenting at this time
an application for an Order setting aside the Order pro Confesso which was
entered in this matter upon an alleged service by the Marshall I suppose, and
present an affidavit wherein defendant Bruce H. Sutliff, presents in detail
the facts concerning his failure to receive any service or process, and I
present at the same time an Answer, together with a Petition and affidavit.
I will state that Mr. Sutliff was under the impression he was never served,
although there is some record that there was a complaint received at his
house at one time. He was living on the ranch on Stony Creek. At any
rate, it seems to be generally conceded that it would serve the
p. 2
ends of justice for these people to be permitted to file their pleadings
and appropriate proof looking toward this very proceeding has already been
entered in the case in 1924. Mr. Belcher appeared with several witnesses
and offered proof as to the water rights of these defendants, under the
supposition that proceedings would be instituted. However, through some
inadvertence of Mr. Belcher and Mr. Sutliff, that was never done. Now with
this proceeding at this time, it has the ear marks of justice all the more
by reason of the fact that Mr. Imo has purchased this property and was
entirely innocent of any knowledge of this proceeding, and be purchased the
property from Sutliff with the idea in mind that his rights were taken care
of completely, so far as any water on the ranch is concerned, and so far as
this is concerned it would certainly seem proper that these pleadings be
permitted to be filed and that proof be considered in evidence, and so at
this time we would like to ask -- first I will present copies of the originals
to the Master and ask for your recommendation and also for an order that the
testimony heretofore introduced on behalf of the Sutliffs’ claim be considered
in evidence in connection with these pleadings, and I am now re-offering that
testimony the same as though it were offered here and now.
MR. MCCUTCHEN: There isnt [sic] any opposition to this, I take it/ [sic]
MR. MORTON: I might add a word there foe [sic] the Master’s information.
The testimony that was introduced by Mr. Belcher for the Sutliffs in the
year Mr. McGowan referred to, was offered with our consent under the
condition that this claim
p. 3
would be limited to a one-fourth appropriation, and there would be no means
to show a riparlan right [not exactly]. That was the understanding and that is
the way in which the matter now comes before you.
MR. MCCUTCHEN: No evidence was offered to support a riparian right/? [sic]
MR, MORTON: No. The Plaintiff has felt this was a comprehensive ranch, - a
going concern, and plaintiff has felt that this mistake made by the Sutliffs
in failing to appear in this cause should be corrected, and therefore we
have no objection to the carrying forward of this program that Mr. McGowan
has referred to, the petition, of course, being filed with the Clerk and the
recomendation of the Master, I take it, going forward with his report, and I
think also the order should be separate and outside of our printed findings
and conclusions. So that we will not get it complicated with that feature
also there would be appropriate reference to this proceeding.
MR. MCCUTCHEN: So far as I have the authority to make such order, I will do
so --
MR. RANKIN [Rankin?]: I dont [sic] know where it appears in the record, but
at some time when I appeared here before you in this matter after this
testimony was taken of the Sutliffs, I made some sort of an objection to
the introduction of that testimony, and it was made for the reason I didnt
[sic] know the situation, although I had been informed that an Order pro
Confesso against those defendants had been entered, and for that reason it
was based upon
p. 4
the fact that they had no standing. I dont [sic] want to be in the position of
withdrawing that objection made at that time, but it developing now and being
shown that the Sutliff people were not properly served, I think it proper
and just that they be permitted to put in this testimony, so, in view of
the facts of the matter, that counsel has offered the evidence at this
time and asked it be considered, as far as I am concerned, I make no
objection to that procedure,
MR. MCCUTCHEN: So far as I have the authority to do so, it will be the order
that the testimony be included and considered in the record, and it will be
my recommendation that the default order pro confesso be set aside. In
proceedings of this kind, it is not the Government’s desire [he speaks for
the government?] to foreclose any person who has any right to the water. The
idea is to get all the people owning the water before the Court and determining
how much each one is entitled to. I remember the testimony of the Sutliffs'
and I was satisfied at the time that their failure to appear was caused by
lack of understanding of the procedure rather than by any desire to abandon
their rights. I imagine that the procedure will be for you to apply to the
Court.
MR. MCGOWAN: For an order?
MR. MCCUTCHEN: For an order setting aside the default order.
MR. MCGOWAN: I assume that should be done after the recommendations of the
Master have gone in?
MR. MCCUTCHEN: I dont [sic] know just what my authority is to
p. 5
attempt to make an order about some people who are no longer parties to this
action in a way -- You had some matters you wanted to take up,
Mr. Morton/? [sic]
MR. MORTON: I was going to suggest there was a small matter of an
appropriation for one and sixth tenths acres in the name of a little
organization up around Stonyford called the Stonyford Catholic Church. There
were certain inadvertencies and conditions that arose after the Order pro
Confesso, which seemed to require that the Government, as a matter of good
faith, should come forward and ask that this Order be vacated and this
appropriation right be listed in the priority schedule. In anticipation of
such request, testimony in relation to this small right was introduced
conditionally upon the approval of a petition of this sort. We have asked
in a petition, of which you have copies in your files, that this order be
vacated and that the testimony that is now in the record be validated. I
suppose it is in the form of a re-offer and admission of the testimony, and
that the right be considered and set up in our findings and conclusions.
I also have a general stipulation signed by counsel in the cause for
plaintiffs, which authorizes and carries, attached to the stipulation, a
certified copy of a deed which is a part of the chain of title in the
so-called Lemon Home appropriation. I will have that stipulation duly filed
and a copy during the day can be handed you for your own information and
records.
MR, MCCUTCHEN: At this time you want to offer that deed?
MR. MORTON: Yes.
p. 6
MR. MCCUTCHEN: It will be received in evidence. It is annexed to the
stipulation?
MR. MORTON: Yes. I have a copy to be used by you for your information
and files.
MR. MCCUTCHEN: On this Church matter - that evidence is already in. This is
in fact a notice that you are going to apply for the setting aside of the
Decree pro Confesso. There is no order for me to make. There is testimony in
already.
MR. MORTON: Yes. Just as in the Sutliff instance, we are asking at the time
of your report to the Court you recite that the matter was presented to you
in preliminary fashion and it seemed to you proper that the order be made,
if that was your opinion, and we come with our Order and ask the Court to
sign it,
MR. MCCUTCHEN: I understand that there was no default taken against those
people and that will be my recommendation,
MR. RANKIN: I have pending and before the Master at the last hearing, an
application for permission to file the petition in support of a right of
Marguerita Williams Welch, and after that hearing I did file with the Master
some three certified copies of deeds. Since that time I have had two or
three conversations with Mr. Webber and it has proven a very difficult thing
to unravel and find these records by reason of some uncertain metes and
bounds description. I think we have that straightened out and I offer an
additional deed to correct the description, a certified deed dated July 13th,
1915, executed by Catherine Houch, widow, to Frederick Houch, Jr., and ask
that it be marked appropriately in this
p. 7
matter,
MR. MCCUTCHEN: The deed may be received in evidence,
MR. RANKTN: In addition to that there is a Patent which should be filed
which we did not have and I ordered it from Colusa by telephone, a
certified copy, from Colusa yesterday and I expect it today and would like
consent to file it today and if I do not receive it, that I may mail it on.
MR. MCCUTCHEN: The record will show that the certified copy of patent is
offered and received today.
MR. RANKIN: That completes that proof. I might say that only involves an
area of nine acres. The evidence was all completed at the hearing except
those records. Now another similar pending matter relates to the right of
L. Huffmaster on whose behalf evidence was offered at the hearing also.
Perhaps the Court will remember that at that time there was some additional
evidence offered with the view of making a subsequent application pleading
riparian right. Upon examining the pleadings I find an answer was filed some
years ago and sets up a right to use the Creek for stock water only, and as
to all other rights in the water he specifically disclaims, so in view of
that disclaimer I concluded the Court would not be justified in re-opening
the case upon an uncertain riparian claim, so Mr. Morton and I concluded we
might settle it by stipulation and for that purpose we have made a stipulation
as to rights for water for stock on the stream. We think at this time that
should cover it.
MR. MCCUTCHEN: Do you want to file it with me or with the
p. 8
Clerk/? [sic]
MR. MORTON: I thought we had better supply your files with the copy and file
the stipulation with the Clerk.
MR. MCCUTCHEN: That is always more satisfactory to me. The documents have
accumulated in the office and it saves me that much time if we have occasion
to refer to them.
MR. MORTON: The stipulation states the findings as they stand remain the
same, except that the stipulation will be referred to in the proper place
and also in the Decree, so as against the plaintiff, Huffmaster will have
certain rights for stock.
MR. RANKIN: At the last hearing, or prior to the last hearing, and because of
the voluminous nature of the report, the proposed findings and judgment in
this matter, and the limited time I had had to look into it, I filed a Brief
of some general objections. I didnt [sic] want to go entirely without
objections until I had checked up the individual defendants’ rights, and
I couldnt [sic] do it in the time I had, and I would like to say now, getting
these two matters settled and having fully compared and checked up the
individual appropriations as found by those findings and proposed to be
included in the Decree, I make no further argument upon these objections and
the general matters I brought before the Master for consideration, and am
satisfied that the findings as to those particular rights I mentioned are
probably as broad as the evidence will permit, for those reasons I think it
would probably be the proper thing for me to withdraw those objections at
this time.
p. 9
MR. MORTON: I had one or two matters that might be of general interest if
it is the proper time to speak of them. The various changes and motions
that have been made this morning involve a minor amendment of the findings
and of the suggested Decree in this suit. The most salutary way in which
those things could be accomplished would be to have the entire findings
re-printed. With that end in mind and with the idea also of having the
Decree re-printed at the proper time, I presented the situation to the
Department of Justice in Washington and I secured a partial approval. It
seemed to me proper that the Department, inasmuch as the re-printing was
desired by it, and that the question of allocation of charges of that sort
was a very difficult thing in cases of this kind, it would be a proper
expenditure by the Department of Justice. I have authority now, at least
I have the assurance that there will be authority that we can have printed
a sufficient number of copies of the Decree as finally amended and rendered,
so that when we come out at the end of this case in the District Court we
have complete one dooument, in which all changes and amendments will be
impounded and a sufficient number of them for the use of counsel and the
Commissioner and others whose interests are involved. As to the reprint of
the Findings, it after all is probably not quite so necessary [no approval
to reprint the Findings?]. It would be desirable to have them in complete,
unblemished form in the District Court, but the next best thing would be to
have the amendments that are now essential under the understandings and
petitions that have come before us this
p. 10
morning put into some convenient form so that they can be readily attached
to or made a part of the Findings which are not printed and which have been
presented by the Master. In order to accomplish this purpose Mr. Webber and
myself have prepared a series of explicit items - Mr. Webber is entitled to by
far the largest part of the credit - and I have here the explicit items which
will show what amendments will be required in the Findings and in the Decree
to make them correspond with the proceedings of this morning, and which
should be included in the transcript.
MR. MCCUTCHEN: This has been all checked over by counsel who are appearing in
this case today?
MR. MORTON: I think that may be said to be so in a general way. They rather
trusted us to be right about the matter, I think.
MR. MCCUTCHEN: The proposed amendments will be included in the transcript
and adopted.
MR. MORTON: The date of acquisition from the United States is apparently
lacking in Exhibit D, which is part of the amendemnts [sic] ahove referred
to. With the Master’s consent and that of Counsel, it may be understood
that this date may be later supplied in that exhibit and in the transcript?
MR. MCCUTCHEN: That is satisfactory. We will file this list of proposed
amendments at least so far as the Plaintiff's Brief [see below] is concerned,
it will be considered amended.
MR. MORTON: I think that should be referred to as your Findings and
suggested Decree rather than the Plaintiff's
p. 11
Brief.
MR. MCCUTCHEN: Possibly. I didnt [sic] want to commit myself to that at this
time.
MR. MORTON: We are suggesting amendments to the Master's Findings and
Conclusions that he has already submitted. [to whom? at this point he's only
marked them as received.]
MR. MCCUTCHEN: Yes.
MR. RANKIN: I want to file a stipulation relating to the filing of water
notice, which will be filed with the Clerk. This is a notice of
appropriation. The original will be annexed to the stipulation and filed.
I would like it to be received at this time.
MR. MCCUTCHEN: Mr. Rankin files a Notice of Appropriation signed C.L.
Mensing, dated March 26th, 1909, recorded in the office of the County
Recorder of Glenn County, in Book 2 of Miscellaneous Records, at Page 301,
on behalf of Defendant Carl A. Green. The original document is annexed to
the Stipulation which is to be filed with the Clerk of the Court. The
Notice of Appropriation will be received in evidence.
MR. MORTON: I dont [sic] know if Mr. Brownell has anything to present.
Did you have anything further?
MR. BROWNELL: No, there is nothing further than those papers already filed.
[Nice job, George Freeman, abandoning your client.]
MR. MCCUTCHEN: I understand that disposes of everything you gentlemen wanted
to take up this morning. The matter will be considered submitted and the
taking of evidence will be closed. As soon as I have prepared a form of
report it will be served upon all the parties [record of such service not
found] and give them a
p. 12
further opportunity to cheek it over and if not satisfactory time will be
fixed for filing written objections without further hearing, and then the
report as amended will go forward to the Court.
-------------------
List of Proposed Amendments in Schedule mentioned on Page 10, Line 16, appears
fully set out on the following pages.
[pp. 13- 25 of that transcript, see separate transcription at
"Settlement of Findings" on this web site.
[following p. 25]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA :
COUNTY OF GLENN. :
I hereby certify that I am the duly appointed, qualified and acting
phonographic reporter for the Superior Court of California in and for the
County of Glenn; that I was present at the hearing of the within entitled
matter and took down in shorthand notes all the proceedings had at said
hearing; that the foregoing pages numbered from One to Twenty-five present
a true, fair and correct transoript of the shorthand notes so taken down
by me and thereafter transcribed into longhand, and are a true, fair and
correct statement of such proceedings and all papers introduced and included
in said transcript.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this 25th day of
September, 1929.
/s/ Dorothy H. Angle.
___________________________
Reporter.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Return to Stony Creek Water Wars.
--Mike Barkley, 161 N. Sheridan Ave. #1, Manteca, CA 95336 (H) 209/823-4817
mjbarkl@inreach.com