Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/806

792 PEDKBA.Ii BBPOBTEB. �been deemed necessary, or at least expedient, to obtain from the state a relinquishment of jurisdiction; but where juris- diction o/er them is vested in the United States, prior to the organization of the state government, this is uot neces- sary. �My conclusion is that the treaty of March 2, 1868, remains in f ull force, and has not been repealed; that by virtue of its terms the Ute reservation is within the jurisdiction of the United States, and that the federal courts of this district have iurisdiction of the case stated in the information. �The order prayed is accordingly denied. �Halleïï, D. J., concurs. ���Mason and others v. Cotton and others. {Circuit Court, D, Colorado. November 17, 1880.) �1. RiPAHiAw 0-wîrEB— Use of Wateb. — Each riparian owner has a right, �within his own territory, to the use of the water as it flows, return- ing it to the channel of the river for the use of others below. �2. Samb — Same — Equitable Relief.— If, however, the water may be �conveniently used by two riparian owners, withoiit strictiy euforcing such right, a court of equity may refuse to lend its aid. �3. Samb — Same — Same. — Held, therefore, a riparian owner would not be �enjoined from talsing water from a river for the use of his mill, although it was not returned to the channel of the river before it reached the territory of an adjoining owner, where it was not clear from the evidence that suoh adjoining owner could not use the water with substantially the same resulta through the race of the defend- ant's mill. �Motion to Dissolve Tnjunction. �Wells, Smith e Maçon, for plaintiffs. �H. M. e Willard Teller and Haynes, Bunning e Tlaynes, for defendants. �Hallett, D. J. Plaintiffs own a flouring mill, situated near Fort Collins, in this state, 'which is operated by water obtained from the Cache-a-la-Poudre river, through a race about one mile and one-fourth in length. This mill and race ����