Neasham

The action was brought to restrain the defendants from interfering with the flow of waters of a certain Neasham Creek, and of two certain springs, and for a judgment decreeing that plaintiffs are the owners of all the flow of said waters and entitled to the use of the same and that defendants have no right, title, or interest in or to the said waters or any part thereof.

Defendants answered, denying many of the allegations of the complaint and setting up two defenses, namely, that plain tiffs were estopped from claiming any interest in said waters, and that defendants had acquired a title thereto by adverse possession and use.

It may be said that the controversy is really as to the ownership of the waters flowing from two certain springs, designated as Nos. 1 and 2, located on the land of said defendants.

The court found “that in the year 1900 Ralph Neasham was the owner of, in possession of, and entitled to the possession of the above described land of plaintiffs; that in the year 1900 the said Ralph Neasham urged the defendant Mary L. Tonkin to enter under the homestead laws of the United States, and by virtue of said laws acquire title to the above-described lands of…