The Weekly Tallahasseean., 1902-03-07

uPOA 1A0lr premises, 1Or winch they
had no adequate remedy at law.
An injunction was prayed for, per-
petuaIly enjoining Rawls from 'tap-
ping, joining to, or otherwise interfer-
Ing with the said sewer pipe" and "per-
petually enjoining him from dumping
said matter" on complainants' prem
ises.
Appellant filed general demurrer to
the bill for want of equity, which was
overruled, and thereupon he answered
the bill. He admitted that there was a
sewer pipe laid between the points and
along the route mentioned in the bill.
but averred, upon information and be-
lief, that there was no official author
ization or license by the legal authori-
ties OF said city to said cOmplainants
for laying said sewer" and he denied
that said sewer was laid with the con-
sent of said authorities. He averred
that he had no information as to wheth-
er said sewer was laid for the exclusive
use OF complainants, as alleged in the
bill, or as to whether the entire expense
of said sewer was paid by them, and the
sewer, and all the rights and privi-
leges attached thereto, and it's use, were
the private property of cOmplainants,
and further aVerred, upon information
and belief, that, if said allegations were
true, neither the city of Tallahassee,
nor its legal authorities, had any right
or power, under the law, to grant TO
cOmplainantS the right to construct
and lay said sewer through the public
streets Of said city; and he prayed the
same benefit of this defense as if it had
been raised by demurrer to the bill
The answer admitted that complain
ants owned all the lots on the north
side of McCarty street from Adams
street to the eastern boundary of the
city, except those lots situate between
Monroe and Calhoun streets, and aver
red that two of the lots between said
laSt-named streets were owned at the
time said sewer was laid, and ever
since, by Mary M. Rawls, appellants
wife, and appellant and his family had
their home and residence thereon; that
the said lots had a frontage on McCarty
street of 130 feet, and that said sewer
pipe was laid along the entire frontage
of said lots, on the half of McCarty
street next thereto, and within few
lant's residence; that for such distance
the sewer pipe was laid in the soil of
the street, the fee of which was vested
in appellants wife, Mary M. RaWlS; and
that she had never, granted or in any
way given to cOmplainants or any of
them, the right or privilege Of laying
said sewer in the soil in front of her
lots, and the cOmplainantS were tres
passers thereon.
The answer alleged, on information
and belief, that at the time of institu-
ton of suit the sewer pipe did not emp
ty into the St. Augustine Branch at any
point on the lands of any of the COM
plainants, but upon the lands of the
estate of the late James D. WestcOtt,
and that since the institution of suit
the complainants, or some of them, had
the eastern extremity of the sewer
moved to a point further north than
where it formerly debOuched, and onto
the lands of the complainant George
Lewis.
The defendant admitted that before
the institution of suit he made prepara-
tions to connect with said sewer at a
point Immediately in front of the lots
owned by his wife, and in the soil of the
street the fee of which was in his wife,
for the purpose of domestic or house
drainage, as he had been advised and
believed, and thereupon alleged, he had
a legal right to do, but, in a spirit OF
abundant caution, friendliness, and
courtesy, before beginning said work
he sought the complainant Edward
Lewis, who, he was informed and be-
lieved, was practically the owner and
manager of the Leoh Hotel, and who,
defendant understood, had laid said