<p>Appeal from the District Court, Tenth Judicial District, Sierra County.</p> <p>This was an action to restrain the defendant from running water upon plaintiffs’ mining claims, and for damages sustained thereby. The facts are set forth in the findings of fact made by the Court trying the cause without a jury. The defendant had judgment, and the plaintiffs appealed upon the judgment roll alone. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court below are as follows, to wit:</p> <p>“ This cause was tried by the Court without the intervention of a jury, and now from the pleadings and evidence I find the following facts:</p> <p>“ First—The ground described in plaintiffs’ complaint is public mineral land of the United States, and contains mines of gold, and has been mined for gold, more or less, every year since 1851.</p> <p>“ Second—Said ground was originally located in four parcels, adjoining each other, by different companies, for mining purposes, in 1852. The company locating that parcel highest up the river was known as the ‘ Perseverance Company the next below as the ‘ Curry Companythe next as Michigan Company;’ and the next, and farthest down the river, as the ‘ Out and In Company.’</p> <p>“ Third—The plaintiffs acquired the claims of all these companies by purchase as follows: The Perseverance claims on July 6th, 1863; the Curry claims on December 5th, 1862; and the Out and In claims and the Michigan claims on December 2d, 1863. And plaintiffs have been mining on some portion of the ground during all the time it has been workable since the spring of 1863.</p> <p>“ Fourth—Plaintiffs traced their title to the Out and Dr ground and the Michigan ground in an unbroken chain in their predecessors from the fall of 1858; and to all the other ground described in their complaint from the spring of 1861. And plaintiffs have been in possession of each of the four different parcels from the date of its purchase.</p> <p>“ Fifth—The ground is situate on a flat, adjoining the south side of the river, and gradually rises as it approaches the mountain. A portion of the ground next the river, or front ground, as it is called, has been mined and worked from the top down; but the bank formed by so mining it has become so high, and the boulders are so large, that the only practicable mode of working the remainder of the unworked ground, next the mountain, is by tunneling under it, and portions of it have been mined by means of such tunnels for several years.</p> <p>“ Sixth—About the 1st of May, 1866, the plaintiffs started a new tunnel under that portion of the ground known as the Out and In ground, and run it under said ground in the usual and only practicable way to mine the same, and run it about forty-five or fifty feet under said Out and In ground, when they were driven out by water, as hereafter stated.</p> <p>“ Seventh—In the summer of 1858 the defendant’s predecessors fenced in a portion of the back ground of said claims for grazing and agricultural purposes, and cleared off about three quarters of an acre thereof, on which they planted and cultivated cabbage and other vegetables, and have continued"' to raise vegetables thereon every year since, except in 1862 and 1863.</p> <p>“ Eighth—During the winter of 1865-6, and the spring of' 1866, the defendant cleared off about one acre more of ground on the back part of said mining claims, and adjoining the ground before cleared and cultivated, and built a new and more substantial fence around the whole lot.</p> <p>“ Ninth—On the 25tli day of January, 1866, whilst defendant was clearing off said last mentioned parcel and building the last named fence, the plaintiffs notified him that he must not run any water on said mining claims, for any purpose whatever.</p> <p>“ Tenth—But defendant continued to completion said clearing and fencing, and in the spring following planted the newly cleared ground, and a part of the old, in potatoes; and on or about the 16th of July following, for the purpose of irrigating said potatoes, diverted from Snake Bar Ravine, which bounds plaintiffs’ said mining claims on the east, a sufficient quantity of water for irrigating said potatoes, and turned the same on the back part of the ground planted in potatoes, and run it across said ground towards the river.</p> <p>“ Eleventh—Ro part of plaintiffs’ said tunnel was directly under the ground planted in potatoes, nor within less than one hundred feet thereof, but the water then run upon said potatoes as aforesaid by the defendant, percolated through the ground and came out in said tunnel, then being worked and mined by plaintiffs, in such quantities as to prevent the plaintiffs from working or mining therein. The extreme back end of said tunnel is thirty-five to forty feet under the surface of the ground.</p> <p>“ Twelfth—That defendant continued to run said water on said potato ground from the time he commenced till the middle of October, 1866, and said water during all that time continued to percolate through said ground and run into said tunnel in such quantities as to prevent the plaintiffs from working or mining in said tunnel until after the said 15th day of October, 1866, and did prevent the plaintiffs from working or mining therein during all the time said water was being ran on said potato ground as aforesaid.</p> <p>“ Thirteenth—That but for the running of said water on said potato ground as aforesaid, plaintiffs could have worked and mined in said tunnel during all the time said water was run on said ground as aforesaid.</p> <p>“ Fourteenth—That by reason of the premises, the plaintiffs have sustained damages in the sum of two hundred and .fifty dollars.</p> <p>“ The conclusions of law from the foregoing facts are, that the plaintiffs are not' entitled to the relief prayed for.”</p> <p>Judgment was entered for the defendant.</p>
