The Birmingham age-herald., 1905-06-14
DEFINES POWERS
 OF WATERWORKS City of Birmingham Wins in SprinkIing Contention CANNOT VIOLATE CONTRACT Company Cannot Install Meter In Res idence Without the Consent of
 Water Consumer-other
 Court Decisions.
CANNOT VIOLATE CONTRACT

Montgomery, June 13.-(Special.) )-The supreme court, in a decision handed down today, holds that the waterworks com pany of Birmingham has no right to vio- late its contract with the city in any way; that 1t can not charge extra for sprinkling lawns, gardens or flower gar dens, that Is to say, it can not force the consumers who have paid dwelling rates to put the sprinklers on a meter; that 1t cannot charge a reception hall as a room in computing residence rates; that it can not make a private contract for meters on residences if that contra ct amounts to a price higher than the flat rate; that it can not install a meter with out the consent of the consumer; that f. can not charge meter rates to persons now inside the city, whose places were outside when the contract was made; that rates for more than one dwelling can rot be charged when two or more live in it: that it may charge for two water closets if they are in use, though only one family has access to them; that it may charge more for a double house than a single; that it may charge for two or more clos cts extra if used by more than one fam fly; that servants rooms are to be com puted as dwelling rooms, even if they are disconnected from the main dwelling.
 Opinions were handed down in the fol- lowing cases by the supreme court to- day:
 Mcclellan, c. J.-New England Mort gage Security company vs Anna NJ G. Fry. appeal from Selma city court. af- firmed
 Anna M. G. Fry vs. New England Mort gage Security company, modified and af- firmed
 Tyson. J -Marengo county, ct al. vs. Thomas D. Watkins, ct al, appeal from Marengo circuit court, affirmed
 Savannah Rail and Equipment company vs. Sabel & Sons. appeal from Montgom- cry city court, affirmed.
 Anderson, J.-lIayor and aldermen of Birmingham vs Birmingham Waterworls company, appeal rom Birmingham city court, affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part
 Birmingham Watery- -orxs company vs. Mayor and Aldermen of Birmingham, ap- peal from Birmingham city court af- firmed
 Per Curiam-Montgom sry Traction company vs. Montgomery street railway. appeal from Montgomery chancer court, motion to advance case denied
 The state of Alabama vs. John M Mor- ris. Sr., appeal from an order and iudg- ment of the judge of the Eighth judicial circuit on habeas corpus proceedings, awarding bail, etc, affirmed.
 Elk parte National Lumber Manufactur- ing company petition for certiorari cer- t;orari awarded as prayed.
 Wesley J. Williams, ct al.. vs. Joe Cas- ton, ct al, appeal from Marengo circuit court, motion submitted February 5, 1905, granted.
 The Decatur Light. Power and Fuel company vs. Scruggs & Echols motion to set aside judgment in lower court. motion overruled
 The supreme court. in affirming the lower court today, in the case of John NJ Morris, Sr., has the effect of liberating Morris, a leading citizen of wealth in Limestone county. charged with murder. come trouble and killed a man. He was granted bail by the lower court. but the state appealed contending that the of- fense was not bailable. The supreme court holds that it is, and Morris will be released. The case has attracted atten- tion all over the state.