. In Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino, State of California. Department One. Cucamonga Vineyard Co. et al., plaintiff vs. San Antonio Water Co., defendant; no. 9187. vG the os^-^e of t. tiar.:jciipt wneie it appearsr -: ?oil, in : trailsjrip^ lucy i^ppi^ai* at Lne pxace J waslookijot--, is pt^e c967, t^iviue, all i-y nieaeuremeiitB of?^urar5ed vrator at tho»f wcIIe, ^r LcKinley, i You it -ki^v. not puiupiij^j Jul^ ^9, 19jli? ii ier, fir, that is what I ruean; ii it was i ^oula ilavo aineasuroi/ientof the flov fror: the well on \--iat Britt, Q Is t is h
. In Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino, State of California. Department One. Cucamonga Vineyard Co. et al., plaintiff vs. San Antonio Water Co., defendant; no. 9187. vG the os^-^e of t. tiar.:jciipt wneie it appearsr -: ?oil, in : trailsjrip^ lucy i^ppi^ai* at Lne pxace J waslookijot--, is pt^e c967, t^iviue, all i-y nieaeuremeiitB of?^urar5ed vrator at tho»f wcIIe, ^r LcKinley, i You it -ki^v. not puiupiij^j Jul^ ^9, 19jli? ii ier, fir, that is what I ruean; ii it was i ^oula ilavo aineasuroi/ientof the flov fror: the well on \--iat Britt, Q Is t is hue pi^t, 3967? Vhat is the pri^e. You Tfill fii^id on tnat oate that taereis no r asureinent of rny ru .ind irom that well on thatuate; tiat in in L-^Oij; c nuc^uc-itiy it was not wruju itook that obflorvation; if it had b^^en pui^pec anu there wasany v/ater flowin-^ OYerthe I woalcj hr^ve neasured it. \ Do you know en tVi&t, oi ^ oi Vols ouisr , hat ti;;e had elapsed rince the well iiaa been pUiiped? I oier ly :no- froir, the record in Ihn caoe, that it hadnoL been puupec since .aig ?^revioia jtu. , t:ie pieviou& in ie,a-. 4 1 »>.-> ti]\^ season; I know nothii\_, aoout that froia ; kiiowleu^e. Q llore than naif of your measureiaents theie are after 1905. A I never measured that vrell, vzhen it was ?DUirrpir»{-; water,except on i»&Tch 15, 1899, Noveoiber 22, 1908; those axethe only dateo on which thiio ?.ell was beiii^ ^HQDea, when Itook the water-levels; all the other times it was not bein^pumped, Q It was not beiiii^ p-aapea on July 29, 1905, when this ele-vati t\ of 1546,oO was takenr A Tnat 13 correct; t/nere was no puiapirit^. Q oi, tnen for the ?ourpoBea oi tnat table, and ttieOToinionc aac aeauctions vvnicn you stated with referenceto the SEjne, waat aia ou assu^iie to be the elevation of at the Gucaiion a 3print,sV A The elevation at .vaich the floT from the sprin^^s is meas-ureo, 1285 feet abov sea-l
Size: 1306px × 1913px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bo, bookcentury1900, bookdecade1900, bookidinsuperiorcourto07cuca
