The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-06-14
WILLNOT ADVANCECASE
MOTION or THE TRACTION CON-
 PANY IS DENIED.
Effort to Get Early Decision From su- preme Court as to Electric Park Fails-Birming-
 ham Water Case.

The Alabama Supreme Court yester- day denied the motion of the Mont gomery Traction Company to advance Its appeal from the Montgomery Chan cery Court on the docket, the effect or which will be to prevent the Traction Company from building car tracks into Electric Park this summer.
 Chancellor W. L. Parks recently sus- tained the Montgomery Street Railway in its contention that the Traction Company should not build tracks into the park which is controlled by the street Railway. From this decision the Traction Comrany appealed to the Su- preme Court and moved that the case be advanced on the docket so that an early decision might be had. In fact, 1t was the hope of the Traction Com pany that it would get favorable deci- sion from the higher court and would build its line into the park before the summer is over.
 The line of the Traction Company to Electric Park is in process of comple- tion. It is probable yellow cars will begin running to the boundary line of the park within few weeks.
 Decision as to Water.
 The Supreme Court yesterday hand ed down a decision from the City Court of Birmingham, involving the construc- tion of the contract of the Birmingham waterworks Company with the city. This contract was made in 1SSS, and there has been a number of construc- tions about the right to do certain things, notably sprinkle lawns and pleasure gardens as a part or the do- mestic privilege of a dwelling without extra charge. The court held that the consumer had such right.
 It Is held by the court that no extra charge can be made for sprinkling lawns or pleasure gardens other than carried with the dwelling. That is. af- ter the rate on the dwelling. regulated by the number of rooms, has been paid the company cannot then enforce more pay for the sprinkiing.
 It is also held that a reception hall, in the ordinary acceptation of the term. is not room to be charged for in water privilege; that the company can- not enforce a contract that amounts to a higher charge than the contract with the city stipulates; that it can not in- stall a meter without the consent of the owner.
 It is also held, and this seems very important, that those who were out side the city when the contract was made, are entitled to the same privi- leges accorded those inside at the be- ginning. It is held also that rates for more than one dwelling cannot be charged even if two families do live in it. Two water closets may be charged for even if only one family uses them; that evtra charges may be made for closets when more than a reasonable number use them; and that servants rooms may be computed as rooms of the dwelling to which they are attached even if they do not have hydrants in them.
 The full list of decisions handed down yesterday is as follows:
 Mcclellan, c. J.
 New England Mortgage Security Company vs. Anna M. G. Fry, appeal from Selma City Court; affirmed.
 Anna M. G. Fry vs. New England Mortgage Security Company; modified and affirmed.
 Tyson, J.
 Marengo County ct al vs. Thomas D. Watkins ct al, appeal from Marengo Circuit Court; affirmed.
 Simpson, J.
 Savannah Rail and Equipment Com pany vs M. Sabel & Sons, appeal from Montgomery City Court; affirmed. : Anderson, J.
 Mayor and Aldermen of Birmingham vs. Birmingham Waterworks Company, appeal from Birmingham City Court; affirmed in part and reversed and re- manded in part.
 Birmingham Waterworks Company vs. Mayor and Aldermen of Birming-