THE STONY CREEK WATER WARS - Report of Master Pro Hac Vice

THE STONY CREEK WATER WARS
Glenn County - Tehama County - Colusa County , California.
(c) 2009, Mike Barkley
Report of Master Pro Hac Vice

[A transcription of the document on file in the Angle Archives
Crucial because it shows the record coming back to the District Court shortly before the Order Adopting the Decree was signed.
In straight text without elaborate 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. ]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Blue cover:]
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND DIVISION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

VS.

H. C. ANGLE, et al.,
Defendants. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - REPORT OF MASTER PRO HAC VICE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FILED ___O'clock and ___Min___
NOV 7 - 1929
Walter B. Maling, Clerk
By /s/ T M Lampert
Deputy Clerk - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - George E. McCutchen
Attorney at Law
505 Ochsner Bldg
Sacramento, Calif.
Special Master in Said Matter
[number written in pencil on cover?]
304138-1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

IN THE NORTHERN DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND DIVISION

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

VS.

H. C. ANGLE, et al.,
Defendants.

IN EQUITY
No. 30

To the Honorable Judges of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California:

Your Master pro hac vice herein, George E. Mccutchen, of the City of Sacramento, in said District and State, respectfully shows:

- I -
That by order of this Court, acting through the Honorable William C. Van Fleet, sitting in the Northern Division of said District, and second division thereof, at Sacramento, California, the above-entitled cause, on the 24th day of June, 1922, was referred to said George E. McCutchen as Master pro hac vice, and he was directed to hear the testimony and evidence and receive the proofs, and to make his report thereon to this Court in the form of findings of fact and conclusions of law; the proceedings before him, and the testimony, evidence and proof to be duly recorded and preserved and submitted with his said report. It was further directed in said order that hearings be held at the City of Willows, in Glenn County, California, except as the convenience of the parties, in his judgment, might otherwise require.

[p.] (1)

- II -
That, having qualified as such, your Master pro hac vice (hereinafter referred to as Special Master) thereupon gave due notice to plaintiff and defendants and their solicitors, and proceeded to hear the testimony and evidence, and receive the proofs, and caused same to be duly transcribed and preserved; said hearings being set down and held in the Court House at Willows, California, from time to time as promptly and continuously as reasonable consideration of the other necessary engagements of the numerous solicitors involved would permit, to-wit: beginning on the 12th day of October, 1922, and extending over until March 25, 1926, the several dates thereof being shown in the record, and for convenient reference upon the respective cover pages of the 27 volumes of the transcript which accompanies this report.

- III -
That it was informally arranged among the solicitors in the cause, with the sanction of your Special Master, that the special facilities, information and graphic data of the government further would be made available to all parties by plaintiff in the form of an opening brief, with suggested drafts of findings of fact, conclusions of law and decree. The time of the completion of this task by plaintiff was set over from time to time -- the extended period thus employed (as well as the lapse between August, 1924, and March, 1926, when no hearings were held) being parimarily accounted for by the disadvantages suffered by the Department of Justice in its then dependence on special representatives in the cause who, perforce with many other members of the bar, lacked experience and knowledge in these highly specialized and sui generis stream system adjudications, and besides were

(2)
unfamiliar with the background and details of this proceeding. Following a change in these conditions, the said opening brief of plaintiff, with its attached findings and suggested form of decree, all contained in a conveniently printed volume, was presented to your Special Master on the 19th day of April, 1928, and forthwith duly served upon defendants through their solicitors or otherwise as appropriate.

- IV -
That time was afforded defendants and their solicitors for reply to or comment on said opening brief, and your Special Master, having examined with care the said findings of fact, conclusions of law and suggested form of decree, determined that the court and parties could best be aided and the case expedited by the adoption and announcement of same as the Special Master's draft thereof. This was done by order and notice to plaintiff and defendant on 6th day of December, 1928, and defendants were granted until the 5th day of February, 1929, for the suggestion of amendments or the making of objections thereto; said order and notice setting down same for hearing at Willows on said 5th day of February, 1929. On that day briefs, suggestions for amendments or objections, as the case might be, were then or had been theretofore filed by the following solicitors:

R.M.RANKIN for his clients generally and for certain special defendants represented by him;

L.E.BROWNELL, R.H.BROWNELL, I.L.BROWNELL and MRS.L.R.BROWNELL in proper person;

HANKINS and HANKINS for the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, and Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, [sic - attorneys and GCID both?] and

C.L.WITTER, for Defendant J.E.AYER.

(3)
Special Assistant to the Attorney General, G.A. Iverson, of Washington, D.C., District Counsel Richard J.Coffey, United States Bureau of Reclamation and R.M.Rankin, A.M.McCoy and Harry McGowan, solicitors for certain of defendants, and I.L.Brownell and R.H.Brownell, in pro. per. were present at said hearing. It developed early in the course thereof that counsel were of the opinion that argument upon matters contained in the suggestions for amendments or objections should be set over pending their discussion as between opposing counsel, and that adjustment and settlement therof, at least in large part, was probable if any opportunity (which had not obtained since the service of plaintiff's brief) were afforded to consider the matter at length and in detail with a representative of the Department. At the request of said solicitors, therefore, said hearing was adjourned without certain date, but with the expectation that progress of the negotiations would be reported to your Special Master within a reasonable time, and the hearing resumed thereafter upon due notice.

- V -
That, upon reassignment to the case, in May, 1929, of Oliver P. Morton, as Special Assistant to the Attorney General, consideration of the possible adjustments and understandings aforesaid was carried forward forthwith, and a resumption of said hearing duly arranged, and ordered and noticed for the 18th day of September, 1929, at the hour of ten o'clock A.M. at the Court House in Willows. When held on that day, consideration was had of the matters previously presented and on file, and of the petitions on behalf of the defendants Sutliff, Laura Bell Griffith and Stony Ford Catholic Church, for vacation of existing orders

(4)
pro confesso against them, and the formal presentation and admission of testimony and evidence theretofore contingently adduced and appearing in the transcript. These petitions were filed with the Clerk prior to my notice of said hearing, and were referred to therein so that solicitors might be advised of the purpose to present them in the first instance to the Special Master for his consideration and appropriate recommendation to the Court in the premises. The petitions recited the conditions with clearness, are apparently founded in equity, and approval thereof by the Court is respectfully recommended. The interested solicitors will presumably, and in due course, present these matters to hour Honors and submit appropriate orders in the premises. In the findings of fact, conclusions of law and suggested form of decree which accompany this report, I have ventured, as a matter of convenience in presentation, to provide for such appropriate amendment of the text as will anticipate the making of said orders.

- VI -
That as to the briefs, suggestion for amendment and objections, which had first consideration at the hearing of February 5, 1929, and constitute all that have been made herein, the following action was taken and announced by your Sepcial Master at the hearing of September 18 aforesaid, constituting a settlement of the findings in the cause:

Sodicitor, R.M. RANKIN, of Willows, in pursuance of an adjustment with solicitor for plaintiff, and without objection by any of the defendants, withdrew as a whole the document through which he had theretofore presented his suggestions for amendment and objections, and in lieu thereof reported the making of a stipulation with plaintiff, under which certain limited uses of stock water by L.A.Huffmaster was provided for; and with the consent of plaintiff, and without objection by any of the defendants, introduced in evi-

(5)
dence certain additional muniments of title in support of the riparian claim of Marguerita Williams Welch.

The suggestion of Solicitors HANKINS & HANKINS of San Francisco, in behalf of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, that certain figures representing the maximum flows in cubic [feet? sic] per second and acre feet per annum be ascribed to their rights from Stony Creek as set up in the findings and decree, with the assent of plaintiff and without objection of any of the defendants, was approved. The said suggestion is attached to and filed with this report.

The Brief for Defendant J.E. Ayer, presented by Solicitor C.L.Witten of San Jose, is attached to and filed with this report. It consists of a few brief lines which, in effect, fully approve the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and suggested form of decree; supporting rather than suggesting amendment of or objecting to said documents. It was so held.

The protest of L.E.BROWNELL, R.H.BROWNELL, I.L.BROWNELL and MRS. L.R. BROWNELL, presented by them in propriae personae, which is attached to and filed with this report, was ruled upon adversely, it being the view and opinion of your Special Master, after examination of the matter, that the point of claim made therein is not well taken.

- VII -
The draft of the findings and conclusions and form of decree, as announced by your Special Master, and submitted to the parties for consideration as aforesaid, is contained in the printed volume which also carries the opening brief of plaintiff, and said volume, as thus printed, is made part of this report and filed herewith. The proceedings had on September 18, 1929, require and call for appropriate amendment of said printed draft to conform therewith, and a list and schedule of such amendments, pointing to appropriate pages and lines of the printed document, was read into the record as per the attached copy thereof which is made a part of this report. It will be noted also that the findings, as they are

(6)
transmitted herewith, as a matter of completeness and for the sake of convenient reference, present a historical review of the cause, report the condition of the record as to dismissals, orders pro confesso, and the like, and the resultant reduction of the number of parties defendant to whom rights are ascribed in the cause to some 119 persons and concerns. The form of the decree, in like manner, is so drafted as to provide for a complete and final disposal of the claims of all parties in the cause and they, in turn, are alphabetically listed in the title thereof at the head of said decree. Provision is made therein for appropriate decrees pro confesso and judgment as against those who are determined to be without right in relation to the parties in the cause, while the subsisting rights of plaintiff and defendants are set up in detailed and scheduled form for convenient reference and use. The Conclusions of Law, and the decree in conformity therewith, as made part of this report, represent my view of the legal questions affecting the cause. Save in the one instance above noted, no issues of law or fact are now submitted for determination in the proceeding, and the decree therein in effect, goes by assent. A discussion of outstanding points of legal consequence will be found in plaintiff's opening brief. No other presentation of points and authorities has been made by the parties.

- VIII -
The costs and expenses incident to the conduct of the trial herein before your Special Master, assessable against the parties, were of the following character:

(a) Per diem of the official reporter, and cost of the original impression of the transcript.

(b) Per diem of the Special Master when occupied on the business of the case ($20 per day or major fraction thereof) and actual cost of travel, with expenditures and subsistence, not exceeding $5.00 per day.

(7)
The county authoritiexs at Willows very courteously extended the privilege of using the court room or other suitable offices at the Court House, without cost. As a matter of a first and tentative distribution of such costs, subject to such final order in the premises as the Court might make, it was arranged that plaintiff should pay half thereof, save in the case of the reporter's per diem, which was apportioned to and paid by the moving party or parties on the respective days of the session. Payments by plaintiff under the above plan have been made to date. The other half of said costs were set over to defendants, and tentatively distributed or allocated in such proper proportion as seemed to be called for by known conditions. Receipts and expenditures in the premises have been as follows:

Brown & Alberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 75.00 Frank Freeman & George Freeman. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650.00 Duard F. Geis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.00 Hankins & Hankins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550.00 W. E. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150.00 McCoy & Gans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.00 Claude F. Purkitt & R. M. Rankin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536.00 Thomas Rutledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170.00 C. L. Witten. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.00 Howard J. Piersol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.00 T. W. Kesselring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.00 Richard Belcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.00 H. W. McGowan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125.00 _________ TOTAL - - - - - - - $2626.20 [sic, .20 ?] That your Master paid to Emmet Healy on account of defendant's per diem and expense of one-half of transcript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1628.40 _________ That the balance of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 997.80 is chargeable against your Special Master's fees and expenses.

(8)
That the total sum due Emmet Healy for defendant's portion per diem and for transcript prepared by him is $1662.40, that the said sum of $1628.40 has been paid thereon; that the balance of $34.00 is owing from defendants under said arrangement, and has not been paid, and that in addition thereto, the obligation of $41.40 has been incurred to Joseph E. Pipher, for transcript and per diem and a similar expense of $14.50 to Dorothy H. Angle; that no moneys are available for the payment thereof. That your Special Master conducted hearings in said cause at Willows for 72 days, and spent 54 days in reviewing the testimony and preparing his report, making a total of 126 days, that his compensation therefore was fixed at $20 per day, making a total amount due him for such services $2,520.00; that his actual and necessary expenses on the occasions of said herings at Willows amount to $242.10, making a total of $2,762.10 and one-half thereof payable by defendants $1,381.05; that your Special Master has received on account thereof $997.80, and the balance of $383.25 has not been paid. That your Special Master respectfully requests that some arrangement be made for the payment of said balances by the parties to this action.

IX. [no dashes]
Especial commendation should be given to all of the counsel who have appeared in the case for the fair and orderly presentation of the testimony. Several parties have appeared without counsel and these as well as the litigants who were represented have been unusually fair. Both the parties and their solicitors have been exceptionally considerate and their attitude has done much to make the conduct of the case by your Special Master a pleasant duty.

(9)

X.
Copies of this report, with the aforesaid amendments to the printed findings of fact, conclusions of law and decree, as settled and adopted at and in pursuance of the hearing of Spetember 18, 1929, were mailed to plaintiff and to defendants through their solicitors, or in proper person where required, on the 21st day of October, 1929, being accomplanied by an order and notice appropriately identifying same and permitting the presentation of objections thereto or suggestions for amendment thereof within a period of fifteen (15) days from said date. No such objections or suggestions having been made, said report as written herein, was deemed to be settled and is respectfully submitted and filed, together with the documents and papers listed below:

Volumes 1 to 27, inclusive; (Transcript of Testimony and Evidence);

Plaintiff's exhibits nos. 1 to 49 inclusive;

Defendant's exhibits appropriately designated by letters;

Proposed amendments of Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District to findings, conclusions and decree;

Protest of L. E. Brownell, et al; Brief for Defendant J. E. Ayer;

Printed findings of fact and conclusions of law form of decree [sic?], together with amendments made in the course of the settlement thereof, consisting of 12 type-written sheets entitled as follows:

SETTLEMENT OF THE FINDINGS
AMENDMENTS MADE IN PRINTED FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND SUGGESTED DECREE.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ George E. McCutchen
_________________________
Master Pro hac Vice.

[No attachments. Get attachments?]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Return to Stony Creek Water Wars.

--Mike Barkley, 161 N. Sheridan Ave. #1, Manteca, CA 95336 (H) 209/823-4817
mjbarkl@inreach.com