The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-05-13
COURT TO DECIDE
DUTIES OF CITY
Richmond's Obligation to Fur
nish Water to It's Citizens
Will Be Tested.
WRIT OF ERROR is ALLOWED
stansbury Secures Appeal in
Damage Suit for Failure to
Get Water in Home.
WRIT OF ERROR is ALLOWED

Whether or not the city OF Richmond
is required to furnish an ample flow nj
water In tho homes OF all it's citizens
who desire 1t and make the renuisite
arrangements for it will be decided by
the Supreme Court OF Appeals OF Vir-
ginfa which yesterday morning grant
ed writ of error to S. 9. Stansbury. in
his suit against the city. q
The point at Issue is tho duty of the
city to furnish public conycnioncns
that 1t is It's business to produce or dis
tribute. to all who desire them. as citi-
Hens may often force public service cor
poratiohs TO servo them equally. In
the case at bar, City Attorney Henry
II. Pollard based his defense on the
principle that tho supply of water by
n city to It's own people is n function
or the government requiring due ex-
animation, Judgment and discretion.
and that 1t is not bound to deliver
water in any particular spot or in any
particular volume. therefore. he ar
Eued, tho city of Richmond is not lia
bio TO damages for negligence in case
OF failure.
Claim City Must Pay.
On the other hand it Is oontended
by c. w. Throcllmorton and Samuel a.
Anderson. the attorneys for Stansbury.
In their petition for writ of error thar
the weight OF precedent is against Mr..
Pollards argument, and that decisions
In Virginia and In other States tend to
tho conclusion that when n city en-
marks in business for profit II acts
in the same capacity as a private cor
poration and is liable for damages in
case OF negligence of it's officers and
agents.
~ case cited is one from Winchester
Va where it was held by the court OF
last resort that the city was liable in
an instance wherein il was furnishing
water to It's citizens for a profit
I'LL l.
tho decision OF the Supreme Court will
he in the case now before it. which Will
be placed on the docket probably for
argument ut the January term.
Failed to Get Water.
S 5. Stansbury has owned his home
ut 213 South Vine Street. or Temple
Street. for six years and has lived in
it for eleven years lie had his own
arrangements as TO water prior to the
annexation of 1906. After some years
he was notified by the Board OF Health
that he must complete his sanitary
arrangements within thirty days and
connect with the city's sewer This he
did. AT cost OF S160. But. whereas he
had had water before. after the work
was done he got very little.' and ii was
finally decreased until he could get
none ut all on the second floor of the
house. and but little on the ground
floor. He complained, he says. many
libieS, bul EOl no Satisfaction, except
repeated and Intellectual washings OF
his meter.
Got Winter with Suit.
AT last, six months after he had
completed the arrangements demanded
OF him. he brought suit against the city
for damages In the Law and Equity
Court and three days later he got
plenty of water. and has had IL ever
since. He asks for $4,000 damages
Water Superintendent Eugene Il.
Davis testified that the Council made n
change In the route OF mains, which
gave greater pressure at Mr.. STAINS
bury's house John +. Burgess who
works for the Water Department, told
of finding pipe partly stuffed with
white lead.
The jury gave Stansbury 1915 dam
ages, subject to the decision OF tho
court on demurrer of tho city to the
evidence. This demurrer was sustained
by Judge Beverly It. Crump, and from
| this decision the PLAINTIFF takes his APP
peal, which has been allowed.