Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1871-07-13

yslusd At s. from J. n Knott; not sustained and
the case dismissed. Anna Doherty, charged with an
tween two Irish women. Catherine states that Anna
assaulted her without any provocaton She witness
threw a stone weighing about ten pounds over the
fence at her, striking her the top of tha head and
with blood. and bsndage about her head. Other
rocks were thrown at her while she lay stunned on
the ground Both women seemed TO be very much
excited while in the court, and accused showed
OF r toe frequent indnigense in esnzine
to morrow Tor the appearance OF witnesses who saw
THE GAS COMPANY.
The following opinion was delivered yesterday by
Henry Bruggaman vs.. was,.in- on Jas Light Com
Dany. Plea Of damages $780, for turning OF the gas
There are in this case several points that are of
great interest TO the public at large but we must
First. L. the company bound to furnish gas9
Second. Has the company the right TO make regu-
Third Had it, the company, Contracted to furnish
gas TO the premises in question
Funth; Win whom did the company contractp
In the first proposition am of the opinion that the
company stands in the position that occupied
pecuniary advantage to furnish gas to all who desire
10 use y, the company Is not bound TO furnish It
demands.
In regard to the second proposition: Under the
charter Of the company granted by act Of Congress,
approved April s, lSiS this company is authorized
a1 EN- ana am OF inc opinion that The
ious distinctions, to make such regulations it may
protect interests, and the
sGmer IS bound to comply, or the company may law
fully refuse to furnish.
In the third proposition: Had the company con
tracted to furnish the gas 10 the premises above
mentlonedF IL Is principle Of law that not be
eontTov erted that company, like an individual, is
bound by It's contract, and in this there
contract 20 furnish and he company was bound
20 furnish il under the contract
The fourth question: With whom did the company
c0ntractf From the evidence in the il is clear
that the contract with Mr.. Grages the owner of
the premises who authorized the furnishing of gas
70 the premises in question, and the company, know
right to furnish the gas, requiring additional Sc
curty as II mig ut deteTmine but when the of
the property, no had himself ordered in person the
gas Tor his tenant, notified the company to shut OF
the gas, as he would no longer be responsible there
Tor II had no alternative. in the event the tenant
refused to comply with the reasonable demands of
the company, but shutting of the protect itself
In this case the evidence shows that the company
notified the tenant that the security had been with
drawn and that he, the tenant could have the of
the gas by furnishing security, or leaving small de-
poslt with the company to indemnify il against loss
that whenever settlement should be made the de-
post would be credited to his account on paving
all demands against him. the collateral would be re-
funded Ii the consumer refuses to comply, then the
company would be justified i'm shutting off the supply
But II seems in this that the company received
Its orders from the owners first to supply the gas
ana second to cut II off, and that the company was
justified in doing, and if the plaintiff was DANA ged
al all was by the act of the landlord, whom he
should look, and not to the company. Therefore
shall give judgment for the defendant plaintiff to
pay the costs.
N. III. Miller for plaintiff, W. b. Webb and James
i. Russ ell for defendant.