Bijou Irrigation District v. Cateran Land & Livestock Co.

Defendant in error was plaintiff below and had a verdict and judgment against plaintiff in error for $15,000 on account of damage to its land by seepage from defendant’s reservoir. The plaintiff in error argues three points: 1. The evidence is insufficient; 2. The jury viewed the premises and looked at certain holes of which no testimony had been given; 3. Erroneous instructions were given and proper ones refused.

As to the first, the engineer witnesses for both sides *95say that the source of some of the water on plaintiff’s land was the reservoir of defendant. The only practical question for…