The Fulton County news. [volume] (McConnellsburg, Pa.) 1899-current, 1904-03-30
WATER co. WINS ITS SUIT.
The Court Refused Compulsory
NOn-Suit and Directed Yer.
dict for Plaintiff.
BOROUGH WILL ASK FOR new TRIAL.

A case which created unusual
interest was that of the McCon-
nellsburg Water Company versus
the Borough of McConnellsburg,
tried last Wednesday, and which
was the only civil cause tried at
our March term.
In order to understand how
much interest was manifested. it is
necessary to recite some local his
tory: For u period of seven or
eight years the question of water
works for this ancient borough
had been more or less discussed,
and several parties from outside
the county had visited us with a
view to forming a company for
bringing water into town, but
nothing came of it until the spring
of 1900, although prior to that
time Mr.. Fredericks. of Milers-
burg, had been granted the right
by an ordinance of the Borough
Council to put water in.
In the spring of the year men,
toned M. M. Dreibelbis, a civil
engineer of Hamburg, Berks coun-
ty, Pa, representing company
of which he himself was part,
came into the town and, having
ascertained that a good and suffi-
cient supply of water could be had
about four-ffths of a mile east to-
wards the foot of Cove Mountain,
he began negotiations for securing
the proper franchise and contract.
The Borough Council had the
matter under discussion at various
meetings extending over period
of month or more, and in May,
1900, passed an ordinance author
izing any water company who
might offer to introduce water into
the town and make satisfactory
contract, the power to do so.
This ordinance was followed bv
contract with Mr.. Dreibelbis,
representing company, by which
he agreed to furnish water with
sufficient pressure, without en-
gines, that is, by gravity, to pro-
tect against fires, and the Borough
agreed to rent twelve fire hydrants
for a period of five years at the
rent of S25 per hydrant per year.
BY the time matters had pro-
gressed thus far, some opposition
had developed, and discussions be-
tween those who were for and
those who were against become
sometimes more or less bitter.
But the water was put in and
proved great success. The Coun-
Gil purchased 600 feet of hose for
use in applying the water, but SO
great had the opposition become
that at the auditors settlement in
March, 1901, the bill for the hose
was thrown out. An appeal fol-
lowed, and decision by the Court
requiring the Borough to pay the
bill.
This did not satisfy the oppos-
ers of water, and the Council from
then on till now persistently re-
fused to pay the rent for the fire
hydrants according to the contract
made in May, 1900.
In May, 1903, the Water Com
pany. brought suit to recover the
rent then due. This was the case
tried last week.
The defendant Borough insisted
that the ordinance and contract
of May, 1900, were invalid and
that there was no binding contract
on the borough. The plaintiffs
case was heard, the defendant
making numerous objections and
taking many exceptions, and NOV
ed compulsory non-suit at the
close of the plaintiffs case. This
was argued at much length. The
court refused the on-suit and the
defendant offering no evidence,
the court directed a verdict for the
plaintiff for S674.35.
This result of the long-debated
water question seemed to give al