My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Correspondences concerning Colorado v. Kansas 1942
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Correspondences concerning Colorado v. Kansas 1942
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/26/2013 3:34:46 PM
Creation date
8/1/2012 3:15:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Correspondences concerning Colorado v. Kansas 1942
State
CO
Author
Ireland, Gail
Title
Correspondences concerning Colorado v. Kansas 1942
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Correspondence
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
OFFICES <br />HODGES, VIRAL & GORSE <br />EQUITABLE BUILDING <br />DENVER.COLORADO <br />June 10, 1943 <br />mr. A. W. McHendrie, <br />Thatcher Building, <br />7'ueblo, Colorn do. <br />Tear Watt: <br />Y, Kan s <br />Mr, Breitenstein and I have con ',fired the <br />matter of exceptions to the 's reTort, and by <br />tomorrow or next day we w he a draft reedy for <br />submission to counsel. ate t these will be <br />rimed here one filed print furs. <br />I am £ -till very concerned about the <br />ratter of printin e r rd.. Breitenstein <br />talked with Mr. his ping and Mr. Ireland <br />retorts the t he con once Topeka on yestsr- <br />day, while the atter of ssible consent decree was <br />discussed, the was als onsid eyed the matter of <br />printing of t record. parently Mr. Stanley takes <br />the position t in a of this heture there is <br />no nU record or particularly the <br />teat is before the Court in original form <br />and red to in the exceptions or exceptions <br />and that he do€�s not propose to designate <br />any nting nor join in abstr€�cting testi- <br />monyf Colorado wants to print or hive print- <br />ed aetimony it mint act .a it is w- daised, <br />Perhaps :fir, Manley is teczuiically right, <br />but i would hesitate to rely on his interpretation of <br />the prevailing practice. This, then, seems to leave it <br />to Colorado to designate what it wants printed. We <br />Tossibly could, except for shortness of the time, prepare <br />a narrative statement of the evidence, Perhaps we may <br />also designate the testimony for printing as it Is. <br />This would be tresendrusly. expensive, particularly as <br />to exhibits. In view of Mr. Stanley's position we might <br />designate for printing only the evidence of Colorado's <br />witnesses, and perhaps even only the direct testimony <br />of Colorado's witnesses* and leave Mr. Stanley to his <br />fate. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.