Albuquerque evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1911-1914, 1913-06-30

Two questions IL oonaid rnble ian
portance 70 the people of Aibuaucr-
eve with references 90 charges Tor
water furnished b. the Water supply
eomFapy, were argued before judge
naSnolds IN the district court today
City Attorney y. G. Lewis. repre-
senlips the plaintiffs, on behalf Of the
city and A. a. AIeMnlcn. owner Of the
water company. representing his IN
forests
The first question submitted 20 the
court was whether tho water COM
pnny has the authority under lis fran
chirc to aSsoss consumers 81 for the
turning on of water after u has hcrn
1ourned or for any reason. The
case IN which this question was in
vowed was that Of T., Scl versus tho
Water supply company Sci set up
IN his complaint that he had failed 20
pas his water hin. not receiving a.
statement shat tho water eoniphns
had turned off tho water and de-
handed tho fee for turning u on
again.
on the stand today Mr.. McAiilleR,
for the water company, said that the
practice Of charging ~ for turning
on water after u had once been turn
ed off. had been recently discon-
tlnued.v and that the present policy
OF the company A TO make a chnrge
Of this nature only IN delinquency
cases. The court took under advise
ment the question AZ 10 whether or
not under any circumstances tho
company has authority 10 make a
charge for turning on the water
with four former employees 81 the
Water supply company as Witnesses
the court heard this afternoon the
ease of T.. A. McRac. versus the Wat
or company. IN which Mr.. MeRao asks
Judgment for e27o alleged 10 be due
Z because of overcharges made. ~ tho
rekult which n claimed. II mlsin-
ltcrprrtntlon Of the franchise fixing
charges for water service
/ The question involved IN tho McRae
I case u whether or not the water COM
panv has authority under the fran
chlse "a charge 35c for 5000 gaiions
! OF water and then rate Of soc Tor
/ from s 900 20 l2.000 and So on down
the schedule II II the contention
that the water company must charge
the minimum rate for the maximum
quantity 81 water furnished--in other
words that the water copany cannot
charge x5c thousand for six thous-
and gallons and then charge soc Tor
the seventh and on up 10 the twelfth,
using two rates. a thlriy-ive cent rata
ana a thirty cent rate 20 hgure out
the total charge.
T. A. McRae. ID. A Macpherson. r.
". Boah and w y. MeGugln, al Tor
mer employees Of the water company
al various times between 1888 and
ig0g. testified today that during the
time OF their employment, Il had been
customary to charge 35e FOR 5000 gall
Ions OF water and soc for quantities
In excess OF 5000 and under 1900
gallons the soc rate prcyaiilug from
the nrst thousand gallons
Thee0u took the Nc Rse case undel
adSisement. n In likely both the SCI
and McRao cases will 20 10 the su'
preme court for final decision.
SPINNER and Winter Charges.
IL n understood the city attorney
has taken up with the water company
the matter Of the adjustment Of the
rates charged IN summer and winter
when the consumer docs not use al
tine water he n entitled TO under the
fiat charge OF $3.50 per month. Man,
consumers De- not use their maximum
under the $50 charge and the cts
attorney alleges that under the fran
ehise the company u required 90 give
tho consumer credit Ia the summer
when extra water is used for the
water not used IN the winter months
II IL understoed there ~ chance 81
securing satisfactory Arrangement
without suit on this particular phase
OF water service Tho matter ~ ms
portani IN that d affects the heautifi'
cation az the city ~ the summer time
residents often being unable 10 afford
the water necessary 10 irrigate grass
and flowers on account OF the water
lrato. even though they have paid fol
l....t..s. - ttanN Ia fha winter