
    (117 App. Div. 882)
    HOCH v. BROOKLYN BOROUGH GAS CO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
    March 22, 1907.)
    Gas—Gas Companies—Refusal to Supply Gas—Penalty.
    Laws 1890, p. 1148, c. 560, § 65, provides that if a gas company on application by the owner or occupant of n building shall refuse or neglect to supply gas, though there may be arrears due for gas supplied to a former occupant, it shall forfeit a specified sum. Held, that the statute does not cover merely the case of a refusal to begin to supply gas after an application, but covers a case where the supply has been cut off after it has once been commenced.
    [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 24, Gas, § 18.]
    Appeal from Municipal Court of New York.
    Action by Martha F. Hoch against the Brooklyn Borough Gas Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
    The plaintiff made a written application to the defendant to have her hotel supplied with gas, and it complied therewith in May, 1904. The bills therefor were rendered and paid weekly up to the following September. The defendant then demanded that the plaintiff pay $8.25 due for the current week and also $22.76 which was due to it by a former occupant of the plaintiff’s premises for gas furnished to him, and because she refused to pay it the defendant disconnected her premises from its main and refused to supply her with gas until the following December 20th, when it received the said $8.25 and resumed the supplying of gas to her. She offered to pay the $8.25 for the week she owed it for, both before and after the gas was cut off. but the defendant refused to receive it on or in payment of that bill, until December 20th. It demanded that both that sum and the $22.76 be paid to save the gas from being cut off, and cut it off because she would not pay both sums.
    
      Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and HOOKER, RICH, . MILLER, and GAYNOR, JJ.
    George C. Eldridge (Arthur H. Cameron, on the brief), for appellant.
    Henry Herrold, for respondent
   GAYNOR, J.

This action was brought to recover the statutory penalties for the refusal of a gas company to supply gas to the occupant of a building. The statute is that if an owner or occupant of a building situated within 100 feet of a main of a gas company make application in writing to the company to be supplied with gas, and pay the deposit required by the statute, the company shall supply such gas, notwithstanding there may be arrears due for gas supplied by it to a former occupant of the building; and that if it refuse or neglect to do so for 10 days it shall forfeit and pay to the applicant $10 and also $5 a day thereafter while such neglect or refusal continues. Laws 1890, p. 1148, c. 566, § 65.

The contention of the defendant is that the statute only covers the case of a neglect or refusal to begin to supply gas after such written request; that it does not cover a case where the supply has been cut off after having been begun. On the contrary, the statute contemplates a continuance of the supply after it has been begun, and the payment of the daily penalty for any interruption thereof by the defendant amounting to a neglect or refusal to supply gas. Meiers v. Met. Gas Co., 11 Daly, 119.

The judgment and order should be affirmed.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs. All concur,  