The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-02-03

WATER COMPANY
MUST PAY $4,000.
The Amount Fisher Sued For
Was $4,000.
THE HISTORY OF THE CASE
In June 1899 the Benbow House Was
Burned.
THE SUIT FOR DAMAGES FOLLOWED
The Action Was Brought in Tort, the Jury Find.
ing Tina; the Plaintiff Was Injured
by The Negligence Of the
Defer dants.
The HISTORY OF THE CASE
In June 1899 the Benbow House Was
Burned.
THE SUIT FOR DAMAGES FOLLOWED
Especial to The News and Observer.

Especial to the News and Observer
Greensboro, n. c.. Feb. 2.--When Su-
perior Court convened this morning YER
dict wss rendered in the case of B. ].
Fisher VS.. The Greensboro Water Supply
Company, the plaintiff being awarded
damages to the amount of $4,000 He
sued for 900 for the destruction of the
Benbow House, in this city, by fire in
June, 1899. This is said to be the biggest
verdict ever obtained in a damage suit
in Guilford COUNTY. A great many wit
nesses were examined and much expert
testimony offered. The plaintiff was rep
resented by Solicitor A. l.. Brooks and
Col. John n. Staples King & Kimball and
Bynum & Bynum appeared for the de-
fenGant tf
The case was brought upon the author
ity of the doctrine held by the Supreme
Court IN the case of Gorrell VS.. the
Greensboro Water Supply Company, re-
ported in 124 n. c., which suit was
brought by Solicitor Brooks. 1t was the
first time the question of the liability of
water company to furnish a sufficiency
of water for the extingushment of fire
had ever come up.
An important question involved in the
case of Fisher VS.. Water Company is that
the suit was brought in tort, the contract
between the defendant and the city OF
Greensboro being set up by the plaintiff,
who. under the ruling of the Supreme
Court is the beneficiary and the real
party in interest. an inducement TO
the obligation and liability thus incurred,
and upon the further ground that the
water company, having been incorporated
for the purpose of furnishing water and
exercising The right of eminent domain
and the exclusive use of the city's streets
and sidewalks, it. therefore, independent
of contract undertook TO furnish suf-
iicieIt supply of water to extinguish fire,
and that il negligently and tcrtuously
thereafter failed and emitted to do so, be-
coming liable for any damages sustained.
The defendant denied that there had
been any breach of contract or negligence,
relying upon the proof that the reservoir
was about full of water at the time OF
the fire. 1t was contended that this abb
solved the company from liability. even
though the jury find that there had not
been a sufficient pressure at the hydrants
from which water was taken by the fire
department.
The following issues were submitted to
the jury.
II At the time of the destruction OF
the plaintiffs property by fire had the de-
PENDANT undertaken to furnish the city
Of Greensboro supply of water accord
ing to the plans and specifications con
tanned in the agreement and contract as
set out and described in the complaint in
the quantity and for the purposes set
CIT? ," No.
-. At such time was said defendant
company engaged in an effort to perform
the stipulations in said agreement and
in the exercise and enjoyment of the
privileges of the same during the year
the plaintiffs loss occurred, and was II
laid for said year the price stipulated in
said agreement for furnishing water?
Nc
80 Did the defendant company fail to
comply with it's contract" Yes.
~i. Was the plaintiff injured by the
negligence of the defendant Yes.
IS. What damages, ii aaR has the
plaintiff sustained" $25, 600.
The above issues are similar to those
submitted BY Judge Hoke in the Gorrcll
case the judgment in which has been
setisfed.