Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-02-02
WATER RATE DECISION
Commissioners Must Turn on Water When
Desired.
Unpaid Rates Not q Charge Against
the Prcmises-JudRe Dradley's Re-
marks ON an Important Matter.

A decision of great interest and i'm
portance to consumers of water was
rendered this afternoon by Judge
Bradley in the case of Mrs. Martha
w. Goddard who several days ago ap-
piled for a writ of mandamus, compelling
the District Commissioners to have the
water turned on in premises 80 Sth street,
owned by her.
In her application Mrs. Goddard explain
ed to the court that a former tenant of
hers, one Gallant, had vacated the prem
ises leaving unpaid a bill for water rent
for one year. The bill was due July l.,
1893, and her tenant vacated the premises
the following November. having been In
possession since July 1, 1892, being in ar
rears to her for rent. The premises re-
manned vacant until December last, when
tenant was secured.
Wishing to have the water turned on.
Mrs. Goddard was informed by the Com
missioners that IL had been turned of be-
cause the water rent had not been paid by
her former tenant. and that she would
have to pay the rent and penalties before
it would be turned on again. The Commits
sioners demurred to the application, claim
ing that water rates are charges against
the premises, and that they have the right
to refuse to turn on the water as long as
Judge Bradley, In disposing of the case,
said that the contention of the Commits
sioners. IL sustained made the accumulat-
ed charges a lien on the property. The
law, il was claimed, authorized the Com
missioners to submit bills for use of water
on the 1st of every July. year In advance,
the bills to be paid in thirty days there
after. If ret then paid, they are author-
lied, 1t was argued, said Judge Bradley. to
cut off the flow of water. penalty or y
ard incidental expenses being enforceable
Judge Bradley held that the use of the
water was in the nature of implied con-
tract to pay for it, and whether or not the
rates could be enforced against either OF
them was question. but IL was clear, SAID
the court, that unpaid rates could not,
under the present law, be enforced against
a third party-against party who subse-
quently bought or rented the premises. II
was also clear, said Judge Bradley, that
water rates were not liens on the property
The rates were clearly personal charges
against occupants of the premises and not
against the property itself.
The Commissioners were only executive
officers. with legislative powers only where
expressly authorized. They could not,
therefore, make laws or regulations for the
enforcement of unpaid water rates. Judge
Bradley referred to the fact that the Com
missioners had failed to turn off the water
at the expiration of the thirty days. If
they had done so, 1t is fair to presume, said
Judge Bradley that the tenant would then
have paid the rate. The explanation OF the
Commissioners that IL was not convenient
to turn it Off earlier was no excuse, re-
marked Judge Bradley.
Judge Bradley also referred to the fact
that the Commissioners were endeavoring
tc compel the payment of the bill before
the water had been used, the water rents
being payable annually in advance. There
was no equity in that. particularly against
Mrs. Goddard, remarked the court. The
people of the District, he said. were en-
titled to enjoy The uninterrupted flow of
water, and the Commissioners were not
justified in making a money making affair
of the matter.
In conclusion. Judge Bradley held that
the Commissioners had no right TO refuse
to turn on the water, as asked for by Mrs.
Goddard, impose a penalty, collect the un-
paid rates or impose any conditions upon
her except to charge her with the actual
expense necessary TO turn the water on.
Therefore. said the court. upon Mrs. God
dard rendering payment for the balance
of the present year she would be entitled to
have the water turned on and the writ of
mandamus would therefore be granted.
TO Star reporter Mr.. s. T. Thomas the
attorney to the Commissioners. said he
had not decided whether or not to carry
the case on appeal to the Court of Appeals.