Annapolis Public Utilities Co. v. Martin

³⁹⁴ Burke, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal in this ease was taken by the Annapolis Public Utilities Company, a corporation, from a judgment entered against it in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County at the suit of John F. Martin, who conducted a restaurant at No. 6 West street, in Annapolis. The declaration contained two counts. The first count alleged that upon the application of the plaintiff the defendant installed a gas meter and made connections from its service pipes to the building occupied by the plaintiff, and furnished plaintiff gas used for cooking and illuminating purposes which the defendant continued to do until the 10th day of April, 1916, “when said defendant or its agents did 'maliciously, wrongfully, and. without just cause, and with intent of injuring the plaintiff’s business cut off said gas supply, which deprived the plaintiff of light and heat for cooking purposes.” This count alleged that the application for .gas was made by the plaintiff to the defendant on the 23rd day of November, 1915, for furnishing gas to be used by him in the premises occupied by him as a tenant.

The second count set out the application in which it appears that the plaintiff agreed to hold himself “responsible for all gas' consumed on said premises until forty-eight hours after notice has been duly given at the office of the company to discontinue the supply.” The count then alleged that the defendant accepted the application, installed a gas meter, made connection with the service pipe, and furnished gas to the .premises for cooking and lighting, and “that said defendant company did continue to furnish to the said plaintiff the supply of gas until the tenth day of April, 1916, when said defendant company, through its agents, did enter upon said premises, and did wrongfully and maliciously and without just cause cut off the supply of gas, and refused and does still refuse to furnish the same. That by reason of the wrongful act of the defendant company the plaintiff has suffered gross indignities and mortifications, as well as having been put to great expense and trouble.” There are four exceptions in the record reserved ³⁹⁵ by the defendant during the course of the trial,'—three relate to rulings on evidence, and one to the action of the Court on the prayers submitted at the close of the case. As we have reached the conclusion that the defendant’s first and second prayers should have been granted the other questions raised need not be considered. These prayers are here transcribed: 1. “The defendant prays the Court to instruct the jury that no legally sufficient evidence has been offered in this case tending to prove that the defendant violated any of the obligations it owed to the plaintiff, and therefore, the verdict of the jury must be for the defendant, upon the issues joined in the pleadings.” 2. “The defendant prays the Court to instruct the jury that inasmuch as it appears from the uncontradicted evidence that on April 7th, 1916, the plaintiff owed the defendant for gas furnished by the defendant on the premises of the plaintiff, and was on that date notified of the amount alleged to be due, and requested to pay said amount, and that the plaintiff was further notified that if he did not pay said amount on or before noon of April 10th, 1916, the gas meter would be removed, and that the said plaintiff failed or refused to pay said amount so due on or before noon of April 10th, 1916, and that thereupon in pursuance of said notice said gas meter was removed without any unnecessary force, the verdict of the jury must be for the defendant.” We hold in Carter v. The Suburban Water Company, decided June 28th, 1917 ( 131 Md. 91 ), that a Public Service Water Company has a right to cut off a consumer’s water supply for non-payment of water rents.

In the case before us the burden was upon the plaintiff to offer evidence legally sufficient to show that he was not indebted to the defendant for gas supplied to the premises at the time the supply was shut off, for unless such evidence was offered there was a failure of proof to support the allegation of the declaration that the supply was wrongfully and without just cause shut ³⁹⁶ off. Tbs undisputed facts, which axe few and' simple, in our opinion are legally insufficient to support the plaintiff’s case. The meter installed and used by the plaintiff was known as a slot.meter. It consisted of two-parts,:—one part measured and recorded the gas consumed, and the other part consisted of a receptacle .in which quarters were placed in order to start and maintain the flow of gas.

If the coin was not placed in the slot no gas would be furnished, and if the meter was in proper, working order, the amount o-f gas consumed and the amount of cash in the slot would correspond, that is to say, there would be sufficient money in the slot to pay for the gas consumed as recorded