Laserfiche WebLink
<br />recessed until 10:00 a.m., February 24, 1964, (7) that <br />protestants make any objections to the reply of petitioners <br />to interrogatories served by protestants on or before <br />February 6, 1964, (8) that protestants' motion to file <br />additional petitions was denied, and (9) that the ruling on <br />protestants' motion for additional bond shall be reserved.' <br />8. On February 24 and 25, 1964 the Court heard <br />arguments of counsel on the question of what constitutes <br />irrigated land and on March 17, 1964 the Court entered <br />conclusions of law to serve as guidelines for petitioners <br />and protestants in this proceeding. <br />9. On February 25, 1964 the matter was recessed to <br />March 13, 1964, on March 13, 1964 the matter was recessed <br />until April 16, 1964, and on April 17, 1964 the matter was <br />recessed until April 23, 1964, and on April 23, 1964 the <br />matter was recessed until May 6, 1964. <br />10. On April 16, 1964, April 17, 1964 and April 23, <br />1964 evidence was introduced in support of the petition <br />and in explanation of the protest petition. <br />11. In an order dated March 17, 1964 this Court <br /> <br /> <br />concluded as a matter of law that the words IIhaving an <br /> <br /> <br />assessed valuation of irrigated land, together with <br /> <br /> <br />improvements thereon, within the proposed District of less <br /> <br />than Twenty Million Do11arsll refers to lands classified by <br /> <br /> <br />the assessors of tha various counties as lIirrigated 1and.1I <br /> <br /> <br />There are 1,758 ownlars of irrigated land, as defined in this <br /> <br /> <br />paragraph, within the District, having a total assessed <br /> <br /> <br />valuation, together with improvements thereon, of $13,797,011. <br /> <br /> <br />12. In an ordl~r dated March 17, 1964 this Court <br /> <br /> <br />concluded as a matter of law that, for the purpose of <br /> <br />-5- <br />