. 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 . ie ItingUc^e of etatute,to order amended &xu\ supplenontJ. pUadingu. ^uio, if we. wore* left to oir own dovicQS we should not horu join anportioB any porflona other than the Cucanonf^ Water Coriiianyand the Ontario Power Company, yet, en the au,; oft>io Court, we liaye conclud^d to aid also the Upland WaterConpany, the IlerrnoHa Water C.^npany, the Sunset Water Cora-pany, and Saauul Jolmaon, and the a
. 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 . ie ItingUc^e of etatute,to order amended &xu\ supplenontJ. pUadingu. ^uio, if we. wore* left to oir own dovicQS we should not horu join anportioB any porflona other than the Cucanonf^ Water Coriiianyand the Ontario Power Company, yet, en the au,; oft>io Court, we liaye conclud^d to aid also the Upland WaterConpany, the IlerrnoHa Water C.^npany, the Sunset Water Cora-pany, and Saauul Jolmaon, and the allegitions conG;;mingt\(in wo are endoavcring to frrine so that they will ho prop-erly charj-^d, anri at the aanie time not aver fac s and nat-ters which we do not believe to be capable of substantiation,and it requires feorae in^^enuity and 00/le tine to frarrit:the averrBnt and bring them as parties before the Court, inaccordance wilii w^ at we und rstand ^.-o be the situation andtiie 8u^ from the bench, and ?*ithout allegingwhjit we belinve to be an untenable thdoirj of iJie have dictated to -r. Benjanun, \i]\Q is kindly acting forU3, the outline of these additions; but wo hope your onorwill riXlow UB a little further tine. We had n
Size: 1305px × 1915px
Photo credit: © Reading Room 2020 / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bo, bookcentury1900, bookdecade1900, bookidinsuperiorcourto03cuca
