Harris

This action was brought to quiet plaintiffs’ title to the right to the use of certain water, alleged to flow naturally through a stream called Harrison Cañón. Judgment was rendered for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.

Plaintiffs and defendants are the owners of adjoining land, ■—■ defendants’ land lying on Harrison Cañón above and to the north of the land of plaintiffs. ■ The real merits of the case — underlying incidental points of pleading and practice — rest upon the issue whether or not there is any watercourse in Harrison Cañón. Defendants undertook to maintain by their evidence that the general character of Harrison Cañón was that of a dry, sandy gulch, with practically no running water in it, except during great and unusual rain-storms, when temporary torrents bring down large masses of sand and debris, which fill up the gulch, and so change it that it could not be said to have any well-defined bed or banks; that ordinarily there was no water in the cañón except a little that oozed out of two springs on defendants’ land, in quantities too small to form a current strong enough to flow down to plaintiffs’ land; and that de *678 fendants, by digging into said springs, and…