Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/161

HEERMAN V. BEE]? SLOUGH MANUf'G 00. 153 �as to leave but a single, narrow, dericient, and dangerous passage between said boom and the opposite bank. �Tint the defendant the Chippewa liiver Improvement and Log DriTing Company, aided and abetted by the defendant, the Boef Slough Company, have, during the suramer of 1878, conslructed on the Chippewa river, at Little Falls, a large dam, entirely across the said river, 16 feet in heiglit, at a point where, by reason of the low surface of the country above, on the banks of said river, such dam will cause a very wide overfiow and backset of the water. �That said dam bas been constructed solely for the purpose of gathering a reservoir or supply of water sufficient to fioat the logs of said defendants at any season of the year, when the volume of . water in said river would not naturally be sufficient in ita ordinary flow, and that said defendants give out and threaten that they will, at any tirae in the year, when they desire for the convenience of their log driving, entirely shut said dam and stop the flow of water in said river until the said dam sball be fiUed, and will then let it oflf in such quantities as shall be convenient to them to drive logs therewith. That for such purposes the said dam is con- structed with 32 gates, to enable the defendants to regulate the cscape of water for thoir convenience. That wheu the same is closed there is not water enough left in the Chippewa, below Eau Claire, to enable steamboats or bargos to be employed. That on October 29, 1878, said defendant, the Chippewa River Improvement Company, without any previous notice, closed their said dam and kept the same closed for a period of seven days, and thereby two steamboats of the plaintiff, which were then in said river, were lett without sufficient water to navigate upon, and ran aground and were injured, and were compelled to suspend their regular trips for a period of seven days, to the great damage of the plain- tiff. And again, on the eighth of November, the defendant again closed said dam and shut of the water for five days, with similar effect, and by means of said stoppages plaintiS sufiered $1,000 damage. And the defendants give out and threaten that they will heroafter contirme to stop the wat"" ��� �