Omaha daily bee., 1889-08-18
The Gas Company's Side OF the
Quesuon.
L. /, 4 -. A..

Question.
In the district court, Douglas county,
Nebraska.
William J. Connell, plaintiff,
Versus
The United Gas Improvement Co.,
The Omaha Gas Manufacturing Co.,
Frank Murphy and Frank Hayward.
Affidavit.
State of Nebraska, Dougles county, SIS.
James f. Hayward, being duly sworn,
says: am one of the defendants in the
above entitled action and am the chief
clerk of the Omaha Gas Manufacturing
company, having charge OF the collec-
tion OF gas bills for the defendant.
Omaha Gas Manufacturing company, and
OF cutting of the supply OF gas from
customers who refuse to comply with
the rules OF the company in regard to
the payment of gas bills.
The defendant, the Omaha Gas Manu-
featuring company, IS and for many years
last past has been corporation organ
lied under the laws of the state OF Ne
braska and engaged in the manufacture
and sale of gas at Omaha, Nebraska.
That during the years 1888 and 1889 it
has supplied gas to the cltizenso of Omaha
thousand feet, that being the price
fixed by an ordinance of the city of
Omaha, during that time, with rebate
of 25c per thousand feet for prompt pay
ment.
That during the years 1888 and 1889
plaintiff has been customer of the de-
fendant, the Omaha Gas Manufacture
ing company, and has been supplied by
it with gas for his residence, and that
during the year 1888 plaintiff paid for
the gas furnished each month as fol-
lows:
1888: For January, on February Is;
for February, on March 81; for March,
on April 20; for April, on May 16; for
May and June. on July 10; for July on
August 20; for August, on September
ID; for September, on November O.; for
November and December, on Jan uary
81 1889.
In the year 1889 the plaintiff has not
paid his gas bills with the same prompt
ness that he did for the year 1883. His
gas bill for the month of January, 1889,
was $9.40, and on the 23d day of Febru-
ary last he paid on account of it the sum
of $40, which was all that the plaintiff
paid for gas except for the month of
April, 1889, although furnished to him
continuously, until the 25th day of
ou"ci Aooo, "hSh Az p"iu VIZ chiohSO VI
81 for the month OF January, to-
gether with his bills for the
month OF February, March and May.
On the 9th day of May plain
tiff paid his gas bill for the month of
April, 1889. July IL he paid for the
month OF June. On the 10Th day of
June, the plaintiff being in default Of
payment for gas for more than three
months past. and after bills had been
rendered and after notice had been sent
TO the plaintiff that the gas supply
would be shut off from his house unless
he paid the gas bills then in arrear, the
defendant, on the 18th day of June,
1889, turned off the supply of gas to
plaintiffs house at the meter thereln.
About the l7th day OF June, not having
heard from the plaintiff and said gas
bill still remaining unpaid, an agent of
the company was sent to the plaintiff s
residence TO remove the meter there
from. While such agent was at plaintl II 3
house, the wife of plaintiff tele-
phoned to deponent that the plaintiff
was out OF town and she wished the
matter to remain until his return, TO
which deponent replied Certainly" }"
and requested her to call said agent
sent to remove the meter to her tele-
phone, which she did, and said agent or
workman came at once 10 the telephone,
and deponent instructed him to leave