with gas by the defendants, which had been paid for regularly, but after the last payment a demand of £5 as security for future supply was demanded from her by the gas company, which she refused to give, and her gas was cut off. It was then let on again, and again security demanded and refused, and again cut off. The plaintiff then applied for an injunction to prevent the repetition of the act while a suit was pending, and a preliminary injunction was granted. The question raised, but not decided, was whether a gas company which has supplied gas for some time quarterly can suddenly cut off the supply of gas on the refusal of the householder to pay for the gas in advance. Dicks v. Equitable Gas Co., 8 Gas J. 328, 631 (Q. B. 1859). - Statute. Obligation. 15. Deposit. The plaintiff summoned a gas company under the statute for refusing to supply him with gas after receiving the necessary application to do so, and it appeared that the defendants demanded as security the sum of £2, while the plaintiff refused to deposit more than £1, and it was held that under the statute the deposit offered was a reasonable one, and that the gas company were bound to furnish gas to the plaintiff. Samuel v. Cardiff Gas Co., 18 Gas J. 192 (1869). 16. Illegal cutting off of Gas. - Damages. In an action for damages for refusal to supply the plaintiff with gas, it appeared that the plaintiff made a deposit of £2 10s., as requested, that at the end of the next quarter a bill was rendered him by the gas company of £1 19s. 6d.; that in June following the plaintiff was notified that, unless he paid the bill at once, the gas would be cut off by the company; that he refused payment on the ground that the deposit more than covered the amount of the bill, and on June 18th the gas was cut off, and the company sent him a bill for £3 14s. 6d., minus the deposit of £2 10s.; that the plaintiff was thereupon summoned before the magistrate and compelled to pay 19s. 6d., a charge of 5s. for cutting off the gas being disallowed, and that afterwards the plaintiff requested the company to resume the supply, which they refused to do unless he paid the expense of putting it on again; and it was held that as the cutting off the gas was illegal, the company was liable in damages. Half hide v. Worthing Gas Co., 22 Gas J. 136. 17. Refusal to supply, when justifiable. Non-payment of Gas Bill. Price. The plaintiff, who was a manufacturing chemist, summoned the defendant company, under § 17 of the Metropolis Gas Act, for unlawfully cutting off the supply of gas laid by them upon his premises, he being at the time a consumer of such gas. The company having raised the price of gas, the plaintiff refused to pay the increased price, and it was held that there had been no demand made upon the plaintiff beyond what the company were entitled to charge, and as the plaintiff refused to pay that claim, he was in the position of a defaulter, and the company were justified in cutting off his gas, and the summons was therefore dismissed. Pearson v. Phoenix Gas Co., 12 Gas J. 69 (1863). 18. Refusal to supply. Damages. Deposit. In an action for damages for the inconvenience and injuries sustained by the plaintiff by the refusal of the defendants to supply gas to her premises, it appeared that there was a demand made by the company of £5 as a deposit for security, which was paid by the plaintiff and then demanded back and repaid to the plaintiff by the gas company, and it was held by the court that the gas company had the right to refuse to supply gas to the plaintiff under these circumstances. Littlewood v. Equitable Gas Co., 8 Gas J. 541 (1859) Westm. Cty. Ct. 19. Deposit. Refusal to supply. Statute 1859. The plaintiff had deposited $15 as security with the defendants in 1872, and the bill rendered for gas in January, 1873, showed that the plaintiff was consuming $45 worth of gas per month, whereupon he was requested to pay the bill and to increase the deposit, which request, although repeated, was refused by the plaintiff, and defendants then cut off his gas and refused to supply him with gas until the deposit was made; and in an action to recover damages for such refusal to supply the plaintiff with gas, it was held that under the laws of 1859 the act of the defendants was fully authorized. Ford v. Brooklyn Gas-Light Co., 10 N. Y. Supreme (3 Hun), 621. Security. 20. Deposit. Refusal to supply not authorized. -A complaint was made by the plaintiff that the defendants, after having taken and accepted the security agreed upon between them and the plaintiff, for gas to be supplied to him, had failed to continue such supply, contrary to the provisions of the Metropolis Gas Act of 1860. It appeared that the security taken was a demand note signed by the plaintiff, that immediate payment was demanded and the gas cut off, as the plaintiff requested a short delay in payment; and it was held that as the security for the payment of the defendants' bills still existed, their refusal to supply was not authorized by the statute. Fowler v. Chartered Gas Co., 17 Gas J. 908 (1868). Damages. - 21. Obligation to supply. No Right to demand deposit. Contract. The plaintiff kept a public house, and having applied to the gas company to be supplied with gas, they refused to do so unless he previously paid a deposit of £12, which he declined to do, and in consequence his house remained unlighted with gas, and he brought an action against the company for damages for their refusal to supply. The company's act of incorporation gave them no authority to demand the deposit, and it was held that the company had no right to demand the payment of any sum of money for laying on gas, but were bound to enter into a contract to supply gas to those in their district who required it, and the action could be maintained. Spratt v. South Metropolitan Gas Co., 7 Gas J. 663 (1858). 22. Damages. Unreasonable Delay. In an action to recover damages for loss suffered by the plaintiff in his business as a publican by the refusal of the defendants for an unreasonable time to supply the plaintiff with gas, the defendants contended that there was no obligation upon them to lay on the gas the next day after a requisition was made, and that they were entitled to a reasonable time for investigating the matter; but it was held that it was a question for the jury to determine whether or not they had taken an unreasonable time to consider, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff, and damages assessed in the sum of £25. Bedding v. Imperial Gas-Light & Coke Co., 7 Gas J. 418 (1858). Gas-Works 23. Supply. Cutting off. Penalty. The Clauses Act 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 41), § 36, imposes a penalty whenever a gas company neglects or refuses to supply gas to any occupier within the limits of the special act; and in an action to recover the penalty it was held that the section of the act applied to a case where the gas company had improperly cut off the gas. Commercial Gas Co. v. Scott, L. R. 10 Q. B. 400 (1875); 25 Gas J. 889. 24. Partnership Debt. Notice. Tenant. Obligation to supply. Defence. In an action by the plaintiff to recover damages for the refusal of a gas company to supply him with gas, the court said that there were "three grounds of defence alleged, viz. 1st, That the plaintiff was a joint contributor, and that this was a partnership debt; 2d, that on entering the premises he did not give notice to the defendants; 3d, that the company were not bound to furnish a supply of gas, but that on all these points his opinion was in favor of the plaintiff, and that a gas company had no right to deprive a tenant of his supply because of a disputed debt which he had expressed his willingness to pay if a court of law should decide he was liable." Penny v. Rossendale Union Gas Co., 14 Gas J. 927 (1865). See CONTRACT, 1; NUISANCE, 31; STATUTES, 10. SURETY. See CONTRACT, 26; GUARANTY. SYSTEM OF COMPANY. See EVIDENCE, 18. TAXATION. I. UNDER STATUTES OF UNITED STATES. - 1. Gas made by Philadelphia Gas-Works. Revenue Tax. Illuminating gas manufactured by the trustees of the Philadelphia gas-works, and furnished by them to the city of Philadelphia, to be used in public lamps, is rightly charged with the internal revenue duty imposed by the statutes of the United States. Gas, under the internal revenue act, is taxable when made and sold, but is not taxable when made by the party "for his own use," and when such gas is made by the trustees of the Philadelphia gas-works, who are appointed by the city under a trust agreement, at gas-works of which the city using the gas has apparently the ultimate ownership, but which, till certain debts due by the city, contracted in order to build and enlarge such gas-works, are paid, are held and managed exclusively by such trustees, who sell such gas to the city at a certain price, and set aside all clear profits as a sinking fund for the payment of the principal due the creditors, such gas, although furnished to the debtor at a price fixed, for the purpose of providing, in the manner agreed on, a sinking fund to pay the debts of the party using it, is still "made" and "sold" for the purposes of taxation. City of Philadelphia v. Collector, 5 Wallace, 720 (1866). 2. Contract. "Free from Charge." Tax. The plaintiff made an agreement with the defendants, in consideration of their surrender of its stock, to furnish them with gas "free from charge." The Internal Revenue Act, § 94 [13 U. S. Stat. 264], levied a tax upon gas and allowed the manufacturers to add the tax to the cost of the gas. The plaintiff furnished to the defendants a large amount of gas, paid the tax thereon, and brought suit to recover the amount of the tax from the defendant corporation, |