The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1893-05-05

controversy.
About ten days ago, as was duly re-
ported in TIE ZINES, bill OF injunction
was granted by Judge Dupuy, OF The
circuit court, restraining the Gas and
Water Company from placing a water
meter in the Exchange building. Last
Tuesday through counsel the Roanoke
Gas and Water Company made q motion
in the circuit court to have the iniunc-
ton dissolved. The points brought out
by counsel are as follows: This was an
injunction obtained by the plaintiff to
restrain the defendant from placing one
meter in the Exchange building for the
purpose of measuring all the water
used by the tenants in the said build
ing, one of the tenants keeping board
ing house or hotel and two others Aav-
ing stores on the ground floor. The
allegation in the bill is that to REQUIRE
the Exchange Building Company to pay
for all the water used by these several
tenants measured through one meter
would cause great injustice and great
inequality; that the ordinance Of the
city fixes the rates for storehouses at
SO per annum where one spiggot is used.
SO If these several stores should use
water to amount to more than SO per
year, the tenants of the stores would
only be required to pay the 50, while
the surplus water they used would be
charged to the other tenants of the
building. Another allegation of the
bill is that the defendant company Is
not intending to locate meters in all
dnn Nd
city, and is arbitrarily seeking to Ice ate
business houses as will aft, RI the Gas
and Water Company more revenue than
they would receive il they charged by
the hydrant or spiggot
When in particular cases, as is be.
lieved great number of such exist,
the occupants OF premises would paw
less Ii the water should be measured
than they do now, when charged by the
hydrant or by the spiggot, they would
charge in such instances in the manner
which would be the most advantageous
to the gas and water company. In
other words the Gas and Water Com
pany claims the right to say to each
water consumer whether it should
charge him by the gallon or by the
spiggot.
This, 1t is claimed by the plaintiff in
the case, is manifestly against the pro
vision in the ordinance of the city
whi;h provides that the rate charged
shall be uniform throughout the city
for the same class of service. By de
murring to this bill which set up the
facts the defendant took the position
that 1t had not done anything in the
premises to justify the court in grant
ing the injunction restraining it from
placing the meter in the Exchange
building.
The reply OF the plaintiff was, that a
court OF equity may always require a
corporation which exceeds, abuses or
misapplies power, to DO as an original
contract requires, and that as this CDR
poration was abusing it's franchises that
are given. it by the city, the circuit
judge had properly ordered this iniunc-
ton. The defendant further claimed
that the matter of furnishing water was
| one Of contract between the Gas and
Water Company and the consumer, and
If the consumer didn't see proper to
take 1T as the company wanted to furn-
ish 1t the company could decline to
furnish the water at all.
The plaintiff replied to this, that
when the Gas and Water Company fur
nished gas and water to the city, 1t
used the streets of the city for the pur-
pose OF laying pipes. Under the fran
chise from the Council il became pub.
lie duty to furnish gas and water to all
| persons along the line of streets so &C
capied, and that II the company under.
took to make unreasonable conditions
and requirements, or to charge un-
reasonable prices, 1t was within the
province of the circuit court to decide
upon what WAS reasonable and proper
regulations, and also to the reasonable
ness OF tho charges imposed.
These are the m ain points in the con-
| troversy that the judge of the circuit
court is now considering. Judge
Dupny will probably render his de
cision in few DAYS