The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-09-28
n V . . . c c . . C ' v c
kIMBRELL V. THE STATE.

 for Murder-Appeal from the
 Circuit Court of Fayette.
 l. Organization of jury; mistake m names of jurors no ground for quasning venire-A mistake in the names or jurors, either in the venire or in the list deiiV- cred to the defendant. constitutes no grounds for quashing the venire.
 2. Same; mistake in second lnliiai or jurors delivered to the defendant the second initial Is different from that In the venre, but the first initial in both the venire and the list served on the de- fendant is the same, the mistake as to the second initial Is immaterial. ana constitutes no ground for discarding the names of said jurors when drawn.
 8 Same; idem SonanS-The mere mls- spelling of the name ia juror in a list served upon the defendant. constitutes no ground for Quashing the panel, when the difference causes no material change in the pronunciation of the name.
 f. Same; drawing of names of jurors not summoned-In the organization Of a jury from a special venire, which Is to try the defendant in a capital case, only the names of the jurors summoned for the trial and the names of the regular jurors in attendance should be write II On slips and placed in the box or substi- ute therefor; but if the names of sev- eral of the special jurors who were or dered summoned, but were not found and who were not in attendance, are placed in the box, from which the jury to try the case is to be drawn, such error is without injury and will not work re- versal: none of such persons being put upon the defendant, and his challenges being in no wise affected thereby.
 5. Homicide; admissibility of hearsav evidence IS to insanity On trial under an indictment for murder, where the de. fendant pleadas not guilty by reaason of insanity, the testimony of the defendant 3 brother that he had heard his mother say that she had received letters from her trcthar's family telling about her bI other losing lis mind, is purely hearsay and inadmissible.
 timony of a witness that a few months before the killing he had heard the de- ceased make statement about the de- fendant being crazy. is inadrnissible.
 '. Same; same-In such a case, where the son of the defendant, as witness in his behalf, had testified to certain acts and declarations by his father having a tendency to show that the defendant the State, on the cross examination Of such witness, to ask him whether or not a few days after the defendant was ar rested he talked sennsibly and ratsonaiGiy vice as to the employment of counsel. amount of fees, etc.
 Opinion by Dowdell, J.
 CITY OF MOBILE ct al. V. BIENVILLE
 WATER SUPPLY co.
 Bill Tn EQulty TOT an 1nJuncllDu.-AppSdl
 from the Chancery Court of Mobile.
 i. Water company; right Of courts to prevent discrimination.-The acceptance by a water company of its franchise car persons along the lines of its mains with the commodity which it was organized to furnish, on equal terms and under uni form rates; and in the absence of legts- courts of equity to interfere to protect the public against unreasonable charges and discriminations.
 g. Same; city operating water works charges for the use thereof.-On a bill filed by water company against the city of Mobile, it was averred that the complainant was a corporation chartered by the General Assembly of the State and was operating its water works il the city of Mobile. supplying water to lti customers in said city for family use sewerage and other purposes; that by ac of the Legislature, said city was au thorized to construct system of Wate works and sewers for the use of itsel and it's inhabitants, and was empowered | to collect such rates for water suppnet | for the use of such sewers as should b | sufficient to pay the interest on the bonds l issued by 1t, for the purposes above men l tioned. That by subsequent act or th' Legislature, the city was. empowered tt | for the use thereof to fix and charge req ! sonable rates, for the purpose of main | taining and operating said sewer system That at the time of the tillng or the bii 6il l that it had never fixed any rate Tor tht | use of its sewers alone, that 1t woul6 not allow any customers of complainants water to connect with or use its sewers | except at the same price as the city | charged for both it's water ana sewers | together, that in many other ways th' | city discriminated against the complain ant making 1t in fact lose it's customers by reason of the double charges so i'm | posed, and that through its officers anC | agents. the city was able to enforce lt' unjust regulations and prohibit the GUS | toners of complainant rom connecunt with the city's sewers. That such regu | lations and acts on the part of the city were unjust determinations of thu charges for. sewers, not only against i tn, against all consumers of water in sait | city. It was also averred that the cit! was inso1Vent. Held: Q) That said bll is not subject to demurrer upon th'
 grounds that the acts complained of were
 unlawful and void acts of the ofi1cers ant
 agents of the city, for which the cit! | was not responsible, the city being abl
 to commit the alleged wrongs Tn no otnsi ne,
 way except through its agents and otf1 | (21 That no charge or rate for tn l use of it's sewers having been tlxed b, 1 ordinance of the city, as the city wa | authorized in it's charter to do, the sai
 charges or rates alleged to have beel
 imposed upon the consumers or the com
 plainant, working a discrimination i
 charges against them. were without au
 thority and the city could be restraine from imposing them.
 } (3) That in such cases the complain , ant being a party injured and entitle
 to protection of his rights and privilege under itS charter. could maintain bi to restrain the alleged unjust discrimina
 tions complained Of.
 CD That under the facts as averre
 in such cas, a court of equity will enjoi
 the city from the perpetration of tn
 wrongs complained of.
 Affirmed.
 Opinion by Haralson, J.
 0pMAN ET Al. " LANE, TRUSTEE