The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1915-04-20

restlng upon the water company was
Ito furnish its customers for consump-
ton pure and wholesome water. In
Jersey City VS.. Flynn, IA N. ]. L. E.
1O4, 1916 the contract requirement
Of the water company was ''that the
water delivered should be pure and
wholesome and free from pollution
deleterious for drinking and domestic
purposes" We think that this con-
( tract stipulation aptly states what a
public supply should be.
And In PETER VS.. Penn. Water Com
pany, 22l Pa. 578; 70 Att Rep. $40,
1T was held that the obligation of a
water company to its customers is to
! furnlsn water that is ordinarily pure
and wholesome; that pure and whole
some water necessarily means such as
is reasonably free from bacteria and
coli, or any other infection or con-
tamination which renders the water
unfit for domestic use and unsafe and
dangerous to individuals. Viewing
the facts of the present case in the
light of the duty resting upon the de-
PENDANT company, the plaintiff met the
burden of establishing the defendants
liability by the introduction of testi-
mony which tended to prove open and
notorious pollution and contamination
OF streams connected with the defend
ants sources of water supply.
But it is claimed that there was no
proof of any typhoid germs in the wa
ter and that therefore, there is no ten
able ground for imputing the typhoid
fever to the drinking of the water.
This argument does not commend if
self to US as sound. There was proof
to the effect that for long per-
lod of time before the outbreak of
the typhoid fever epidemic there
were discharged into the sources
OF the defendants water supply
large quantities of fecal and vege-
table matter, which the scientific ex-
perts testify are indicative of the
presence of the bacilli coli and which
IN turn indicate the presence of ty-
pnoid lever germs but not necessarily
SO. And where there are bacilli coli in
any considerable quantity there is a
PROBABILITY of the presence of the ty-
pnold FEVER germ. Furthermore it APP
pears that the president of the de-
Ienoant company came before the
Doard OF health In response to a COM
munlcation sent to the defendant by
the town clerk relating to the water
supply, and made statements relating
to the condition of the water before
the outbreak of the fever. It is true Il
that this letter was written in June.
1917, SIX months after the appearance
OF the epidemic, but since it appears |
tnat the president of the defendant
company appeared on it's behalf to ex- |
pam the condition of the water sup
ply as 1T had been and what was done |
10 remedy 1T, we think the statements
ne made IN that regard as to what was
done by the company to ascertain the
condition of the water supply prior to
or at the time of the outbreak of the
epidemic, was competent to be given
IN evidence. Halsey VS.. Lehigh Val
ley K. r. Co., As N. J. L. 26; Agricul-
tural ms. Co. VS.. Potts, SIS N. J. L..
log; Carey VS.. Wolff Co., ~ N. j. T.
From his statement it appears that
bacilli coli were found in the tests
MADE OF the water after going through
tne nitratlon plant of the defendant
company. The plaintiff was not leg
any required to prove by positive tes-
tt,mony and with absolute certainty
tnat the drinking of the water was the
cause of the typhoid fever. The
plaintiff satisfied the burden which the
law imposed upon him by proving such
facts and circumstances from which
It was made to reasonably appear that
the drinking of the water was the
probable efficient cause of the typhoid
FEVER. Wilkins VS.. Standard Oil
Company, 78 N. j. L. 524. 1t is onlv
where 1t appears that the injuries were
occasloned by one of two causes, for
one OF which the defendant is respon-
slDle but not for the other, the plant
III must prove such facts and circum-
stances as will exclude the equal prob
ability of the injury having resulted
from the cause for which the defend
ant is not liable. Stumpf VS.. D. u e
W. r. R. Co., rs N. ]. L. 1853.
The present case is barren. of anv
testimony from which reasonable in
ference can be drawn that the illnesses
Of the plaintiffs children were due to
any other cause than that of the water
supplied by the defendant. The de-
tendant makes the further contention
mat the plaintiffs case must fail be-
,ause the allegation in his complaint is
nat the illness with which each of his
children was afflicted was typhoid
lever, whereas it appears by the tes-
'imony that 1t was not true typhoid,
)ut was, what is known in medical
earning, para typhoid, much milder
0AoCeScCs
/ matter of no, consequence whether
y not the illnesses which the plant
ifs children had were true typhoid
ever the crucial question being
whether their illnesses were due to the
lnwholesomeness of the water SUM-
,lied by the defendant.
= We do not find anything in the de-
'endant's criticisms of the Judges
.harge or in the exceptions taken to
he admission or rejection of testi-
nony in the cause which would war
ant disturbance of the verdict. The
'ule to show cause will be discharged.
The next move that can be made is an
ppeal to the Court of Errors and Ap-
eals, but no decision has been reached /,
n this point. The opinion places the
lount Holly Water Company in very
npleasant position, as on this case it is
aid there are at least a dozen other
,Iif0 rards-n |