Price v. Laclede Gaslight Co.

• Decision Date: 02 March 1920
• Docket Number: No. 15377.,15377.
• Citation: 219 S.W. 706
• Parties: PRICE et al. v. LACLEDE GASLIGHT CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

219 S.W. 706

PRICE et al. v. LACLEDE GASLIGHT CO.

No. 15377.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 2, 1920.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; William T. Jones, Judge.

"Not to be officially published." Action by Robert L. Price and another against the Laclede Gaslight Company, brought before a justice of the peace and retried in the circuit court. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Earl M. Pirkey, of St. Louis, for appellants.

Robert A. Crabb, of St. Louis, for respondent.

NIPPER, C.

This action was brought before a justice of the peace in the city of St. Louis. Plaintiffs recovered, and defendant appealed to the circuit court. There was a verdict and judgment for defendant in the circuit court, after which plaintiffs in due time and manner perfected their appeal to this court.

The action was to "recover the amount of $45.60, which plaintiffs claimed they had overpaid defendant for gas which it had not furnished, covering a period of about 15 months, or, to be exact, from September 18, 1913, to December 18, 1914. Plaintiffs contend that this was due to a leak in the pipe at the gas meter, and introduced 23 gas bills in evidence, showing the amounts of the bills after a new meter had been installed and also the amounts for the 15 months for which they asked recovery. After the gas bills were introduced, and while the jury were looking at some of the gas bills, the court stated to plaintiffs' counsel, "You don't expect the jury to get the amounts?" Plaintiffs' counsel stated that he had them tabulated, and the court told the jury that the amounts would be furnished them. The defendant's evidence was, in effect, that the leak in the pipe was at a point before it entered the meter, and therefore plaintiffs were not charged with the payment for the leakage.

After verdict and judgment, as aforesaid, plaintiffs bring this case here upon two assignments of error: First, that the court erred in limiting the argument of plaintiffs' counsel to the jury to fifteen minutes; second, that the court erred in preventing the jury from inspecting the gas bills introduced in evidence, and not permitting the plaintiffs' counsel to get these gas bills before the jury.

We are not favored with a brief by respondent. Appellants cite only one case, that of Neumann v. St. Louis Transit Co., 109 Mo. App. 221, 84 S. W. 189, to support their contention. The case above cited was an action against the St. Louis Transit Company, and it was stated, in the course of the opinion, that the testimony filled 56 pages of printed record, and that 15 minutes on each side was a sufficient time for argument of counsel; but inasmuch as...