The Birmingham age-herald., 1904-05-17

D. Greene to be examined as juror. Have you been a resident householder or freeholder of this county for the last preceding year?" Judge Greene asked.
 'I have" replied Mir Boon.
 Are you related by blood or marriage to the deceased or to the defendant at | the barr"
 q am not"
 DO you believe in capital punishment" q do."
 ] s&~<%-><-~<->%%-<-<% I that may be made for the domestic use 1 of water, but as setting forth the rates allowed when water Is applied to domes- | tic purposes in the specified cases, viz: Dwellings, etc. If 1t were admitted that | sprinkling lawns and flowers so far con- tributes to the health. comfort and con- venience of the family in their enjoy ment of their dwelling as home, that | the use of water for such purpose Is a 1 domestic use, still I would hold that the | domestic rates are inapplcable in the | special case, unless the word dwelling included the lawn. That this is the proper 1 construction seems clearer to me from the | employment of the expression domestic rates. The word rate presupposes some l thing which is to be and can be rated according to the rate as a standard of measurement It Is hard for me to see how the quantity of water necessary for | the sprinkling of a lawn, of indefinite and varying area, can be rated or meas ured by the number of rooms in the dwell ling The existence of the lawn, nor its area is not considered In either determin- l ing or classifying the domestic rates, and its presence or absence neither in- creases nor abates the charge which, it Is urged, includes it. As applied to lawns the domestic rates are not rates at all.
 Other Cases.
 T think the present case is distinguish able from the case of Bushby vs the Chesterfield Water Works company, 96 | Eng. Common Law Reports, IFS, which is | cited by counsel for the atty. There the water company was required under an act to supply water for domestic use to the owner or occupier of a house at prices 1 according to the poor rate assessment of such houses. The question considered was whether a supply of water for domestic | purposes to the occupier of dwelling house included supply of water for horses and washing carriages kept on the premises by the occuper for his private use. In deciding that such a supply was 1 included the court said among other
 
 der no apprehension of being losers; they ought to have fair remuneration for the supply which they impart, and will look to the sum at which the party supplied Is rated. If there be separate rates on a l house and stable there will be distinct charges; and when the whole are rated | together they will charge the aggregate for domestic use.'
 'In this case 1t was decided that If the stable was assessed on a part of the house which was the subject of the poor rate | assessment, from which the water rate vas determined, then 1t was included in the rate which 1t had material part in fixing.
 'In the case of Bristol Water Works I company vs. Uren, 15 c. B. Div. 637 also relied on by counsel for the city, of which 1 have been furnished with an incomplete report. it was said:
 Tn our judgment, water used for the I mere amenities of the house, such as in this case. the watering of the pleasure | garden, surrounding and attached to and occupied with the house, may legitimately and fairly be held to be used for domes- tic purposes within the meaning of the statute in question, and we are of opin- ion that the true reading of the statute | before US is that the consumer in this | case is to pay upon the value Gas before 1 defined) of the dwelling house with It's 1 appurtenapces for water used not merely | in the dwelling house itself. but also in watering the pleasure garden surrounding and attached to and occupied with the | house, and used and enjoyed as the gar den in this case Is. as mere amenity to l the house.
 Part of Dwelling.
 1 Here the water used for sprinkling was l for ic r1tlr pose within the meaning of the particular statute which seems to have expressly made the lawn part of the dwelling whose value determined the rate charged. and the value of the lawn seems to have | been added to the value of the dwelling proper to which it was appurtenant, the aggregate value being considered in fix | ing the rate.
 "The reasoning upon which the con- | cIusions in both these English cases was reached that water for stable purposes and lawns respectively were governed by | the rates charged for domestic uses, seems to have been that those things 0ne lawn and stable) which played material part in fixing the rates should be includ- | ed m them. Giving full force to this req | soning It's corollary would seem to be | that what was Lot reckoned with in fixing the rates would not be included. "Returning to the present case it is | fair to presume that contract which | for the purpose of exacting charge | takes notice of every room and bath tub. was intended by the parties to charge for all water furnished in any considerable quantity. yet if the domestic rates alone can be looked to where water is used for lawn and gardens. this supply would escape aymsnt altogether.
 "Construing this contract in Smith vs Birmingham Water Works company, 10. Alabama. the court said:
 The contract plainly means that the company should charge for all water fur.