on the first of that month, is sufficiently definite to sustain an action for penalty.-Bennett v. Eastchester Gas L. Co., 54 App. Div. (N. Y.) 74, 66 N. Y. Supp. 292, 40 App. Div. (N. Y.) 169, 57 N. Y. Supp. 847. Under the statute requiring gas and electric light companies to furnish gas or electricity on application, under penalty of forfeiture, it is necessary that the application should state the number of lights or quantity of power desired, etc.- Andrews v. North River Elect. L. & P. Co., 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 512, 51 N. Y. Supp. 872; affd. 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 671.

[13] Reports.

A city, empowered to regulate the price of gas furnished to its citizens, enacted an ordinance which provided that in order to enable the council to determine what would be a fair and reasonable price, all gas companies should file a verified annual report setting forth certain facts.- Held, that such an ordinance was within the power of the city and obedience thereto could be compelled in a proper civil proceeding.Cline v. Springfield, 10 Oh. Dec. 389.

A legislative body having power to regulate the price of gas may compel the rendering of any reports or information desired, to enable it to act fairly and intelligently.- Cline v. Springfield, 7 Oh. N. P. 626.

[14] Protection from unreasonable regulation.

If the Board of Electrical Control arbitrarily refused to allow repairs to be made which were desired by the illuminating companies, and the regulations of the Board were unreasonable, the companies had ample remedies at law to compel the Board to give them proper permits.— U. S. Ill. Co. v. Grant, 55 Hun (N. Y.), 222, 7 N. Y. Supp. 788.

[15] Monopolistic agreements.

An agreement by one gas company not to furnish gas to patrons of another gas company is monopolistic and unlawful.- State ex rel. Snyder v. Portland Nat. Gas Co., 153 Ind. 483, 53 N. E. 1089, 53 L. R. A. 413.

[16] Effect of monopoly.

A gas company sued to restrain enforcement of an ordinance fixing rates, and a master found the rates confiscatory. The court decided against the company on the single ground that it had been a monopoly unlawful under the laws of Illinois.- Held, that the case should be remanded for a new trial.— Peoria Gas Co. v. Peoria, 200 U. S. 48, 26 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 214.

[17] Actions by consumer.

L. 1896, ch. 125, fixed the maximum price of gas furnished in the city of New York at 80 cents. The Consolidated Gas Co., obtained in a suit in the Circuit Court of the United States, in which the attorney-general of the state, the district attorney of New York County, The City of New York, and the Gas and Electricity Commission of the state, were made parties defendant, an injunction pendente lite which restrained the defendants from enforcing the provisions of the statute, provided that the gas company might make the same charges as formerly, and further provided that the difference between the old and new rate be paid into court, there to remain until final adjudication of the cause. Held, that a consumer, not made a party to the suit in the federal court, was not by this injunction enjoined from bringing a suit in the Supreme Court of New York State to restrain the gas company from cutting off his supply of gas on account of his refusal to pay the old rates, nor was the Supreme Court prohibited from entertaining such a suit.— Richman v. Consolidated Gas Co., 186 N. Y. 209, 78 N. E. 871, affg. s. c. 114 App. Div. (N. Y.) 216, 100 N. Y. Supp. 81; Grossman v. Consolidated Gas Co., 114 App. Div. 242, 100 N. Y. Supp. 100; affd. 186 N. Y. 541, 78 N. E. 1104, on opinion in Richman v. Consolidated Gas Co.

A person not a party to a bill in equity in the federal courts is at liberty to apply to any court of competent jurisdiction for the enforcement of his private rights, even if they be the same as those involved in the suit first brought in the federal court.- Richman v. Consolidated Gas Co., 114 App. Div. (N. Y.) 216, 100 N. Y. Supp.. 81; affd. on other points, 186 N. Y. 209, 78 N. E. 871.

If there is a suit pending between a gas company and a consumer as to the correctness of the former's charge, the latter is entitled to an injunction against the cutting off of the supply of gas until the case can be adjudicated.— Sickles v. Manhattan Gas Co., 66 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 314, affg. s. c. 64 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 33.

The measure of damages for improper refusal to continue to supply gas includes any consequent deterioration in the value of the premises, on sale or rental, the cost of removing the gas fixtures, and restoring the premises, etc.- Baltimore Gas L. Co. v. Colliday, 25 Md. 1.

[18] Penalties.

N. Y. Transp. Corp. Law, § 65, provided that upon demand for the furnishing of gas, and a failure of a gas company to furnish the same within a certain time, the latter should be liable to a penalty of $10, and a further sum of $5, for each and every day it so failed to furnish gas. A gas company having refused to furnish gas to a property owner, the latter brought suit and recovered the amount of the penalty

which had accrued up to the bringing of the action.-Held, that the cause of action for the penalty was single and indivisible and but one recovery could be had therefor and therefore the property owner could not bring a subsequent action to recover the $5 per day accruing after the recovery in the first action, a further demand and refusal being necessary before another cause of action accrued.-Jones v. Rochester Gas & El. Co., 168 N. Y. 65, 60 N. E. 1044, revg. s. c. 45 App. Div. (N. Y.) 629, 64 N. Y. Supp. 138.

A written demand is a condition precedent to the recovery of a penalty under L. 1890, ch. 566, § 65, for refusal or failure to furnish gas, and the fact that the company commenced supplying gas without the written application does not render it liable to the penalty immediately upon discontinuing service.-Shelley v. Westchester L. Co., 119 App. Div. (N. Y.) 61, 103 N. Y. Supp. 951.

N. Y. Transp. Corp. L., § 65, provides a penalty for failure or refusal of an electric lighting company to furnish electricity to persons whose property is located within one hundred feet of the wires of such company.- Held, that no penalty is incurred for refusal to furnish electricity for the lighting of a house, where it appears that the wire which is within one hundred feet of the plaintiff's house carries a current which was too strong to be utilized for domestic purposes.- Moore v. Champlain Elect. Co., 88 App. Div. (N. Y.) 289, 85 N. Y. Supp. 37.

Where, after application therefor, gas is furnished to a consumer for a short time and then is cut off, no penalty can be recovered under L. 1900, ch. 566, for refusal to supply gas, until there has been a new application, and a refusal to supply.- Shelly v. Westchester L. Co., 55 Misc. (N. Y.) 105, 105 N. Y. Supp. 133.

After plaintiff had brought action in the Supreme Court to compel an electrical corporation to restore its wire connections with his house, defendant asked that court to grant an interlocutory order restraining the plaintiff from prosecuting in municipal court an action to recover from the defendant certain statutory penalties for refusing electric light to him.-Held, that even if the court has power to stay proceedings in another and inferior tribunal, the power can be justified only in an extreme emergency.- Gould v. Edison Elect. Ill. Co., 26 Misc. (N. Y.) 64, 56 N. Y. Supp. 465.

A statute imposing penalties for refusal or neglect to supply "elec tric light as required," must be strictly construed, and requisition therefore must be in writing.— Andrews v. North R. Elect. L. & P. Co., 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 671, 53 N. Y. Supp. 810, affg. s. c. 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 512, 51 N. Y. Supp. 872.

§ 67. Inspection of gas and electric meters.1. Each commission shall appoint inspectors of gas and electric meters whose duty it shall be when required, to inspect, examine, prove and ascertain the accuracy of any and all gas meters used or intended to be used for measuring or ascertaining the quantity of illuminating or fuel gas or natural gas furnished by any gas corporation to or for the use of any person and any and all electric meters used or intended to be used for measuring and ascertaining the quantity of electrical current furnished for light, heat and power by any electrical corporation to or for the use of any person or persons and when found to be or made to be correct, the inspector shall stamp or mark all such meters and each of them with some suitable device, which device shall be recorded in the office of the secretary of state.

2. No corporation or person shall furnish or put in use any gas meter which shall not have been inspected, proved and sealed, or any electric meter which shall not have been inspected, approved, stamped or marked by an inspector of the commission. Every gas and electrical corporation shall provide or keep in and upon its premises a suitable and proper apparatus, to be approved and stamped or marked by the commission, for testing and proving the accuracy of gas and electric meters furnished for use by it, and by which apparatus every meter may and shall be tested, on the written request of the consumer to whom the same shall be furnished, and in his presence if he desires it.

If any consumer to whom a meter has been furnished, shall request the commission in writing to inspect such meter, the commission shall have the same inspected and tested; if the same on being so tested shall be found to be, four per cent. if an electric meter, or two per cent. if a gas meter, defective or incorrect to the prejudice of the consumer, the inspector shall order the gas or electrical corporation forthwith to remove the same and to place instead thereof a correct meter, and the expense of such inspection and test shall be borne by the corporation; if the same on being so tested shall be found to be correct the expense of such inspection and test shall be borne by the consumer. A uniform reasonable charge shall be fixed by the commission for this service.

Power of Commissioner of Water Supply, Gas & Electricity of The City of New York, to test meters,- see Greater N. Y. Ch., §§ 469, 519.

Power of former Commission of Gas & Electricity as to inspection
of meters,- see N. Y. Gas & El. Com. Act, § 10.
Appointment, salary, general office, etc., of former Inspector of Gas
Meters, see N. Y. Transp. Corp. L., § 62.

Deputy Inspectors of Gas Meters and employees of former Inspector of Gas Meters,- see N. Y. Transp. Corp. L., § 63.

Provisions of Transportation Corporation Law as to inspection of
gas meters, see N. Y. Transp. Corp. L., § 64.
Effect of inspections of gas meters made before the passage of this
Act, see post, § 82.

Office of Inspector of Gas Meters abolished, and his powers and duties transferred to the Public Service Commissions,- see post, § 82. General power of the state to regulate property devoted to public use,- see ante, § 1, notes [1]-[22].

Exemption from public control,- see ante, § 1, notes [16]-[21]. General rules of statutory construction,-see ante, § 1, notes [23][40].

Effect of vacancies on power of Commission,—see ante, § 4, note [5]. Validity of Commission plan of regulation,- see ante, § 4, note [14].

Requiring the expenses of a state railroad commission to be borne by the corporations inspected, is constitutional.- Charlotte, C. & A. R. Co. v. Gibbes, 142 U. S. 386, 12 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 255.

The court does not perceive the impracticability of inspection of meters, etc., as alleged by the defendant gas company, or its great expense.- Schmeer v. Gas. L. Co., 147 N. Y. 529, 42 N. E. 202, 30 L. R. A. 653, revg. s. c. 26 N. Y. Supp. 1128.

A gas meter, even after being tested and inspected pursuant to law, is not conclusive of the correctness of the quantity of gas a consumer is charged for, but the registry may be attacked by other proper evidence.- Sickles v. Manhattan Gas Co., 66 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 314, 64 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 33.

A meter which has been neither sealed nor inspected cannot be accepted as a standard of measurement, in an action by a gas company to recover the price of gas furnished.-Manhattan Gas Co. v. Flamme, 12 N. Y. Wkly. Dig. 245.

When a meter is installed in the house of a consumer, there is no bailment, from which the consumer can claim the right to use it for any reasonable purpose.- Blondell v. Consolidated Gas Co., 89 Md. 732, 43 Atl. 817, 46 L. R. A. 187.