*1 201 entirely contained in this is suf- The evidence record charge support ficient to in and the indictment, jury justified by beyond evidence reasonable doubt returning guilty charged. a verdict of record,
We find no error this and the decision of the lower court will be affirmed.
Affirmed. Light
Mississippi Power & Co. v. Thomas. April 11,
In Banc. 1949.
(39 (2d) 759; (2d) 597) So. 40 So. *3 Henry Barbour, Green, Nelson, & Green & A. and M. for appellant.
206 *8 appellee. Holmes,
J. for G.
211 *11 Alexander, J. injuries personal suf- brought
Appellee an action for ap- pipe-line, escaping gas laid from fered when spark while ignited her automobile pellant, from from counted, garage. being The declaration in her started improper negligence, installation upon an two elements pipe improper con- pipe an union use of of the and the judgment sum nection. Prom verdict and appeals. the defendant $3,000, of several 1944, line and consisted The was laid length. twenty joints approximately It was laid feet in underground. eighteen The inches between fifteen and joints as a “Dresser is described were united what apart couplings pulled Coupling.” aat of these One garage. place hor- This was both beneath dislocation pipe being three one izontal and end some vertical, being opposite separation and the end, inches below attached to three inches. The remained about joint. garage in the southernmost erected thirty- part explosion 1947, occurred latter garage eight days upon thereafter. The was erected ground sloped garage, rear which southward to the upon wall and rested solid foundation about the sides upon These and rear. walls were laid the surface ground, height were six inches var- thick, and their *12 at rear ied from six to about two a half feet feet and garage by the front. The floor of was at constructed filling inside this foundation wall with to level of dirt driveway leading a to the street. The was finished floor with concrete three runners so as to accommodate two cars, weight garage was of entire at estimated joint pounds. eighty beneath thousand The broken part fill. fill of toward the front dirt Appellant’s interest concern rises the usual above displacing an to involve an and seems verdict, adverse anxiety judgment im- that an affirmance of the would pliedly, directly, proscribe if not use the “Dresser of support, Coupling,” with testimonial which, he asserts, widely companies in has been used this and other uniting pipe privileged sections. we would not be While troubling to a share this concern incident con- by legal necessity, compelled clusion if we take thereto occasion to state neither the nor our con- verdict carry implication. clusions need such coupling, nicety, This without technical con- described coupling body sists of a metal sleeve or inches about six long, joints opposing pipe into which the ends are slipped, tightened by octagonal and which is threaded engages progressively at nuts each end. This action and tightens pipe compound gasket, about the a rubber there- by sealing against leakage, by pressure the line or compression tight, though joint. makes flexible, Ten- strength sought produced sile is to be assured friction through tightening nuts, of the end which causes a gasket engage gaskets retainer to and hold fast about pipe ends. Its merit over other union devices ar- is gued upon ground flexibility of its which allows pipe slip great pressure under rather than allow a pipe joint break of at the at a terminal connection. emphasize quality flexibility, To this a concession is that, possible joints pull apart, made it is for such al- though properly they when installed afford tensile strength pounds. of about one thousand Its technical popular designation “slip joint” conveys as a more implication than a improperly mere applied, if that, it would only leakage constitute a hazard but of actu- separation. al conflicting
There testimony regarding the com- parative strength safety other coupl- methods
216 joints” welding “ground or notably by
ing, or tbe of use procured couplings. instruc- defendant Yet, the screw comparisons effectively with other excluded which tions Coupling to provided was found the Dresser such devices widespread Taking reasonably their safe. into account be general approval was therein authorized. use' and liability the of involves
It is issue the clear that questions (1) coupling the used was under the whether prop reasonably (2) was safe; whether it circumstances garage (3) erly was the of installed; whether the erection (4) proximate break; whether of the sole cause the reasonably garage a foreseeable the was the erection of required contingency against was which the defendant guard, to make allowance. or for which it was bound to erecting garage negligence in man the the course, Of though concurring cause, at even ner, location, the was unless it not of itself absolve the defendant would intervening’ were sole cause. These alternatives the through presented jury proper Ar instructions. the to guments respective support to contentions include pipe not have been observation that a leak would garage been erected over serious had not hazard escaping gas joint, thereby allowing to be accumu confined; a water line similar dimen lated and of parallel line and beneath sions laid joined coupl garage. water with a screw The line ing, though exposed not the same did and, conditions, pull apart. Coupling” or “Dresser was con break The tight leakage, yet against under so as to remain structed expansion by emergency play it allowed or conditions equal pipe slippage extent to which each end twice the beyond gasket. Just what was inserted amount sway length in the would or deflection line its extend yet point separation computed, is not dia to grams any sag show exhibited substantial did displacement only, but as stated vertical above, line, pipe southern or rear the north or section below front section. sufficiently joints noteworthy the other were
It is pressure im- strain, however secure to withstand the posed, and here in- other end that the pipe joints connecting were volved remained intact. *14 joint, similarly only depressed rear but the or south coupling, which retained the was to be inches found three opposing joint. supports a below This view the the pressure weight dislocation was to vertical from not due by pull joint, a which above the but horizontal tested its strength. plausible theory of tensile The more the de- is that fendant such lateral strain resulted from the adjacent weight of the fill, the rear wall exert- which, and point ed a beneath real at caused the southern wall, the joint sway shortening in an arc to a sufficient cause of beyond margin length its safe of about three the inches. diagrams As not, the exhibited do stated, show however, any such deflection. The break occurred about seven garage, feet from end of the which, the front as stated, ground, was about two a half above and feet and about twelve feet from the wall which rear was about six feet high. garage The floor of was between three the and joint. four feet above the
Further statistical elaboration of data would not be sharply helpful. presented (1) The issues are: Was the garage place, erection of at the the the manner in- reasonably probability? (2) dicated, foreseeable If so, pipe-line was the laid with commensurate care in view (3) probability? of If such such erection was not reason- ably intervening was it the foreseeable, sole and cause of injury? resulting break and the garage, pulling apart
Had there been no the joints presented simple although would have case, one application of defendant’s instructions denied the ipsa loquiter the res doctrine. dispute. pipe- certain are
Now, factors without The pull apart, escape, line did did and as result thereof, injured. plaintiff garage Was the erection of the proximate injury? cause sole, This would have justify Yet, of defendant. exoneration true to to be have been con- must Its erection more. there must be chargeable with was not tingency defendant which probability. anticipating as a reasonable by negligence contributory no involves This suit he who erected plaintiff. If both defendant negligence proximately guilty contribut- garage were regardless may injury, either ing recover from she prece- respective If contributions. their of the extent augmented negligence activated or of defendant dent injury, point actual to the act of another yet its fault. answerable for be would defendant foreseeability and of of reasonable issues fully intervening instruc were submitted cause sole, presented jury. whether the issues Also were tions particular proper joint circum under the used was properly proper, if it was even stances, whether, jury resolve negligently were free to left installed. The *15 fix on whomsoever chose, the blame it issues, and to these opin accident. We are of it to mere the or to attribute properly factual and submitted. were ion that issues these alleged grounded upon an vio was suit not The provided, municipal in such which a ordinance lation of joint except ground or metallic “no unions cases, that assigned it is for error Yet, seat unions are allowed.” plaintiff in evidence was allowed introduce that the digress municipality. the We do of the ordinance to follow an assault constitutionality upon the of the ordi hereafter Attack is reasons stated. direct nance, for the testimony implied particularly which more than the ed installing by Couplings” “Dresser the defendant, that responsibility. throughout city, criminal the had incurred thereby prejudice possibility has caused of adverse The us little concern. no propriety
Regardless and evidential value of the Neg- (as proving negligence 38 to which see Am.Jur., thus ligence, justify 168), here it on such we do not Sec. ground. was first fact of such ordinance established by although provisions the defendant, its were not exhib- procured ited. Moreover, defendant instructions duty the effect it was not that to furnish defendant’s any particular coupling, only and kind left for decision ‘‘ coupling the issue whether there was used as is such recognized by by usage the trade custom and to be and reasonably proper safe and under the and circumstances, you Coupling reasonably if that the Dresser was believe properly recognized safe when and installed, standard as you proper, and then find for re- should defendant gardless every and other fact in the circumstance case.” nullifying implication
In of the de- ordinance, procured fendant instructions to the if effect coupling type approved was of used in- used and dustry, recognized being reasonably and was safe and they deny recovery. properly in- installed, would Such finding structions authorized that the had defendant Couplings; used care use of Dresser due or that coupling improperly negligently installed; such was injury superseding that the sole cause of or, was the negligence garage. builder of the against jury
To insure condemnation Coupling, per procured se, Dresser the defendant instruc- generally accepted tions if such (and ample testimony thereto) used there was reasonably recovery safe, itself there could be no “even though you may joint rigid believe that a welded screw joint would not have or would have broken, broken at ’’ point, injuring plaintiff. some other without controlling
It is evident, therefore, that proper existing issue was that of a installation in view *16 reasonably foreseeable conditions. The assertion pipe-line years, that the had been for two and half laid injury thirty-eight days and the occurred after erection garage, supplied argument of the material for which plausibly jury has been utilized. Yet, the had before it testimony gas escaping open usally that into the air is that its harmless. concentration within But, the founda- 220 patent con- hazard. In this it a
tion walls would make concluding that the erection in nection, defendant, injury, building as one assumes cause of the was the sole may prior premise disconnection, been a that there have negligently culm- caused, would not have however, which, any injury garage In if been built. had not inated explicable in a situation would arise other there words, “injuria absque phrase course, Of damno.” coined prior as a but stands fact, break defendant concedes no injuria. jury theory absque upon of damnum garage whether were to consider free, therefore, magnified may merely It break, its effects. caused the or may escape liability repetition bear that the refendant only upon finding garage, an intial where that injury. proximate constructed, was sole of the cause garage, But, for defendant resourcefulness put against would be test to defend such break- severe age injury. and a resultant plaintiff’s jury In not some, all, but instructions, "the charged ghe
were that the with told defendant hi degree dangers st leaking of care commensurate with the ” escaping any coupling from . . . The writer opinion, respect speak of this who does in this for the opinion "degrees” is of the that Court, no there are requisite comprehensively but care, care is defined as degree appreciable of care commensurate with dan ger, appraised ordinary prudence, interp in terms of light reted berts v. of the attendant circumstances. Ro Mississippi Light 627, Power & 193 Miss. 10 Co., So (2d) 542. employment phrase “highest Yet, the degree frequently of care” has been used. State Use Cunningham, of Johnson v. 107 Miss. 51 140, 115, So. superlative aspect, implies L.R.A.,N.S., 1179. In its it responsibility by only slight negligence. which is violated sufficiently Is qualification its force restrained danger? that such care be with the commensurate Cer tainly danger if it is to be measured and limited
221 thereby, uncertainity which the the could blur otherwise vague brought superlative outlines of at once into the are by clarity focus of the limitation. instructions Other plaintiff, for the and all defendant, those for fixed prudence. measure care the standard reasonable coupling properly The issue whether the was installed apart pulled was submitted that it the circumstances testimony regard sought and direct in this to be elicited from defendant’s witness Turner who made put together “I He stated: installation. it as near cor- my knowledge.” response inquir- repeated as In rect properly coupled, it ies whether if had been un- would, it pulled apart, per- der the have the witness circumstances, ” ambiguous pull apart. sisted in the “Well, it did answer, jury interpretation The faced an therefore with pull apart on one which, meant that it.would hand, despite adequacy due which care, would search the of the proper device; as a hand, on the other and could very bespoke faulty infer fact of disconnection installation.
Objection alleged is made to the of the error admitting testimony plaintiff’s trial court in qualifications witnesses, William and Their Jenne. as ex pert challenged. special training is witnesses had Both gas pipes they fittings, installation if had accepted by judge expert not been trial as witnesses, gave they expert testimony at least within facts special knowledge. McKelvey their See on 5th Evidence, page only weight 339. Such Ed., considerations affect testimony. of their
Testimony damages as to the measure of is disturbingly physician ap indefinite. No was called to praise injuries, the extent or duration of the nor as to explosion. their causal connection with the The case Stringer, hovers close shadow of v. Hawkins Miss., (2d yet )454, plaintiff’s suffering 38 So. the extent of causal connection'between her disabilities and the perilously beyond, to, close place
negligent but her act pre- award pale amount of the cited case. challenge. however, concluded, haveWe another sents prejudice, passion or it evidence is not in there may judgment, it does *18 it our however assault and that conscience. not shock the
Affirmed. (dissenting). J.
McGehee, C. controlling opinion this suit herein, in the stated As alleged charges upon of predicated or elements two is gas improper negligence of the service installation —an and the use coupling improper pipe-line, union or of an pipe-line. I think do not connection of the for the safe any at if to evidence, all, evidence there was sufficient improperly gas installed. that the line was show specific regard charge is that in that of the declaration “negligently Light Company failed to & had the Power provide joints thereof and to make secure one of the joint, appliance coupling proper so as to render or for said ’’ gas, reasonably against pressure the of same secure the etc. in on account of testified,
A Mr. Turner substance, that shortage skillful in when under- the of workers this 1944, ground vacant service line was installed across the thirty-eight garage later erected, lot on which the years days explosion, more a half before than two and the pipe personally, the after connected installation, he, the lengths pipe Coup- use of the “Dresser ends of of the along pipe-line, ling” at six and when locations asked coupling pull properly if whether or not such would loose replied I am he “that one did.” Moreover, installed, conclusively opinion it is shown that he did that securely install so as to make it fact reason- ably pressure gas, safe to withstand since there was no proof he did not do or whatsoever the record so, period during that it came more than loose two and years prior garage a half coupling to the erection of over the
joint which became disconnected caused the explosion.
Mention should be herein made of the fact that on the morning explosion, plaintiff of the had theretofore garage go out driven the automobile to re- Mass, to garage, starting it to the later when turned the auto- purpose taking nephew mobile for her to ten explosion pipe o’clock If the Mass, occurred. under garage during prior had become disconnected night explosion, appear the gas before the it would that the during night
which accumulated had therein ignited garage trip would become on her have first to the purpose using go early for the car Mass morning. And mention should be further made that during this was the winter rains and that the concrete garage foundation of the at thereof, the back end where it approximately high five where feet it been had *19 placed top ground footing, approxi- on aas and mately eighteen pipe-line, inches above the was found to pipe-line be sunk to within five inches of after the the ex- plosion. explosion I leaking do not think that an from gas ground tendency under the a would have had to lower pressure gas the since the foundation, of the would have upward. been controlling opinion
It is stated in the “it that is note- worthy joints sufficiently that the other were secure to pressure imposed, the withstand or strain, however and coupling that other end of the here involved re- noteworthy I mainded intact.” think it is more that the weight 80,000-pound garage any of this was not over of joints. gas pipe-lines other In service fact, are placed buildings, buildings beneath but are into extended gas appliances so as to connect with the from a meter lo- adjacent immediately cated of outside and to such build- ings. extending
I negli- think also that it is the doctrine of gence entirely too far to hold that because defendant might garage reasonably a that foreseen have
should pipe-line mean that would erected over later be reasonably company light power should have also and causing to slide anticipated soil forces of nature that garage weight so as to dis- of with the combine would heavy during coupling same underneath the a connect intact for more had remained the connection rains where years. a half and than two dispute, other thousands of that shown,
It without City throughout Couplings of Ya- used were Dresser throughout including area of elsewhere, those zoo and sliding Capital City and in other in our soil elsewhere and resulting explosions country, parts without couplings be were shown to the use Such from thereof. reasonably appliance general or connec- safe use a distributing industry. by fact, In in Crocker’s tion “Piping published Book McGraw-Hill Handbook,” it 1945,4th is stated Ed., New York and London, Co.,Inc., trade “is well known under the that such Dayton Coupling Coupling, is names Dresser gas, extensively other services oil, water, and for air, used generally underground. .” . seems be . It above flexibility industry experts recognized in this breaking prevent is line in connections desirable extraordinary quality pressure not found under —a joint; joint underground where an welded welded weight sliding pressure fromor soil is used an unsual may point will break it at the but connection, not break damage. causing Most with the likelihood elsewhere making pipe-line assuredly, installation would not one damage anticipate required more from such result be place another. rather than at at one *20 Company v. & Wisconsin Power In the case of Chester company Light N. the 158, 861, 247 W. Wis. Co., joint it to use a flexible or con- held liable failed because injury present for an If suit was nection. the caused joint breaking pipe-line a welded was used, where the follow this presumed that would it Wisconsin is to be we
225. upon liability predicated the that should be case and hold in case at bar did do,' the the failure do what defendant to weight Court, of our own or the in an absence of decision contrary. jurisdictions authority to the from other pipe-line the was installed it when this Thus was that opinion with a well-reasoned was confronted defendant holding Supreme that flexible connec- the from Court is no decision used; been and since tion should have there contrary, I think should hold the do not we cited the to appliances gen- using are in such as defendant liable for industry. in the distribution eral use anywhere in brief on behalf is made the No contention up- appellee in this case verdict should be that the .coupling ground that this was not se- held on made the originally in- the workman when same cure the although charge in this is contained the declara- stalled, interrogated regard the workman was there- tion and urged by appellee In the contention the to. other words, judgement appealed affirmance of here for the the from negligent upon Coupling of the Dresser is based the use reasonably being appliance. as not controlling opinion safe However, “neither
states the verdict nor that carry implication,” thereby our conclusions need such say meaning controlling opinion that the to decision of condemning as in this case is not to be construed the use Coupling. Dresser deference, the utmost it With seems to me that unless Coupling Dresser use of this is be condemned, prooff I which would be warranted don’t think under the necessarily upon case must the affirmance rest alleged failure of the workman “to make secure one of joints” pipe, alleged declaration, notwithstanding this that workman made connec- it so secure held for more than tion that two a half years showing leakage after its installation, without dur- ing permitted conjecture that are not time. We may possible leakage prior it is there have been a complained occasion upon of. The burden was *21 226
plaintiff prove directly to fact, such either or circumstant- ially, support if the same is to be relied on the to conten- weight garage tion that the and forces of the na- acting upon ture the soil did not combine the as sole and intervening independent produce efficient, and to cause reasonably the coupling unforeseeable dislocation of the garage. jury permitted beneath such should not be say joint pipe-line that a connection in a which has pressure by gas withstood and the forces nature of for years securely more than two and a half not was fastened beginning. in the placed
Reliance is pipe-line the on that fact the water garage underneath the not did become dislocated. How- this ever, gas line was distance of about seven feet from the garage, line gradu- underneath the and this distance twenty ated to feet out to the the end of lot the at street, it was garage and not shown that the concrete wall of the pipe-line. sunk had it where crossed the water was It pipe-line that shown the of connections the water were joints, screw use of which the have been discontinued Company, fifty-three the United Gas one the subsid- parent company, iaries use Dresser Couplings underground gas pipe-lines in has continued recognized equipment general to be as standard in use. pipe-line water And while the failure of become dis- may persuasive of a ar- located have afforded basis gument jury, was an immaterial circumstance it above on issue whether the reasons stated for Coupling pipe-line in the a Dresser reason- ably appliance. safe controlling opinion, “the in true,
It is stated escape, apart, gas pull pipe-line and as result did did liability injured”; plaintiff but test thereof, pipe-line power installing or not is whether proper use a rea- company care to light exercised and sonably properly installed had safe reasonably against protect toas manner such same more than which occurred two accident foreseeable years a half after the installation I thereof. do not think proposition affirmative of this is a debatable issue un- undisputed der the evidence disclosed record, this in- cluding the facts set hereinbefore and that forth, there- fore the directed verdict in favor of the defendant should *22 granted requested. have been as
But if mistaken in the view above I am unable stated, justified reversing see to how we would in be not this case ground contrary for a new trial on the that the verdict is great overwhelming weight to evidence, the of the permitted plaintiff and for the further reason the was greatly prejudice rights to before the of the defendant city jury by and to the a ordinance introduction of the act a criminal the the characterizes as contend that same gas pipe in Ya- Coupling installations in use of Dresser notwithstanding City. permitted the this zoo And was inspec- city line general nor its council fact that neither the objected use to the to have ever tors shown are being city in throughout not couplings the as of these compliance plain- Moreover, such ordinance. with permitted in the cross-examination tiff was of witness couplings being- show these were witnesses to city, question to all demand to be used over whether or the witness not know not did answered as to coupling- was violation of the law. that the use such interposed, Objection promptly but overruled. Wit- was ‘‘ Mississip- If it a violation asked, is of law, then ness was violating Company Light ail law over pi & is Power objected question City.” to without avail. This was Yazoo defendant, the one who installed for the witness Another pipe-line, also asked, was on if cross-examination, he he this know when installed didn’t and some that it was a violation others of law or five in four Yazoo type coupling. Objection City ques- this use this to the witness overruled, and was then asked, “If tion it you in short law, this a violation line of 86 feet, times five in law construction of this violated city line.” authority As a matter of fact, had no proper police powers adopt exercise of its an ordi- couplings recog- nance that would condemn the use of equipment general nized be standard and in use gas distributing companies, defendant and other which reasonably appliance, safe since to to be a were shown prohibit be an unreasonable exercise use would such power. upon predicated may, it the suit was
Be that as city should alleged and the same ordinance, aof violence evidence, nor should have introduced been not plaintiff permitted the acts to characterize been have employees when the in- as criminal and its the defendant jury against doing prejudice a would effect of so evitable having regard ordinance for the no the defendant municipal- adopted authorities constituted ity. controlling opinion with and I think defer- states, *23 erroneously “the fact of such ordin- that states,
ence it by although its the defendant, first established ance was questions which provisions exhibited.” were not ref- with counsel were the defendant’s been asked had laying pipes regulations as to of code the erence to the through up walls of the floors and houses and the “under space when he was heaters,” etc., to the and the'houses examining put he did not who testified that witness, a only pipes. pipes, He was then underground but house specified to code as what certain You have “Q. asked: right. pipes Q. That is And those be A. should done? right.” ground? In That is other A. are above the questions the counsel not defendant’s did these words, complained justify of of the ordinance the introduction highly prejudicial de- cross-examination or the alleged repeated regard their to witnesses fendant’s it is inconceivable to me how And law. violations of any during may developed that be circumstance or occurrence lady young has in- been where burned a trial jured, could have been through own, her more fault no prejudicial rights jury, to the the defendant before though jury even the court did de- instruct that the required any type particular was not to use fendant only required reasonably but was to use a safe one. correctly jury
In the court as to the fact, instructed the granted law in the defendant, instructions to but these evidently followed, instructions were not and due jury believing city fact that the was led into from or- dinance and the characterization of the acts of the de- plaintiff as criminal fendant violations that thereof, regard was nevertheless entitled to without verdict, reasonably the fact coupling that the defendant had used safe properly and had installed the same. opinion I
However, stated, am hereinbefore peremptory that defendant was to a entitled instruc- tion for the reason there was no substantial that evidence proper to show it that had exercised the care to use securely reasonably coupling, install a safe then and general pipe now in for use, connection from which gas escaped, though even the owner of the right garage lot had the install thereon the wherever he it, should locate choose to fact remains the in- juries complainant complained to the herein of were due reasonably to an accident which was not forseeable, being predicated negligence upon any suit here on and not alleged duty against possibility. to insure a remote JJ.,
Smith Roberds, concur in this dissent. Suggestion On Error.
Hall, J. *24 Appellant suggestion has an filed elaborate in error asserting necessity case, this as a therefor the uncertain status under our former decision herein of the standard Coupling Dresser in standard service installation, 230 upon tbe fol- basing at tbe outset its contention sole
and utility, public “Appellant, a con- lowing point: had coupling, right in line a dresser install this titutional to constitution- to cannot 'Dresser’; so do hereinafter called suggestion negligence; ally is limited to this be declared obligation point court of this constitutional that as an inferior court quo to herein conform ad and must ’’ supreme by requisite court. federal that declared original presenta- upon point was raised The same opinion original appeal, we stated in our tion of this “Appellant’s in dis- usual rises above interest concern placing an anxie- seems to involve verdict, an adverse impliedly, judgment ty would an affirmance of the that Coupling’ directly, proscribe ‘Dresser use of the if not support, has been with testimonial which, asserts, he uniting gas companies widely in this and other used privileged share pipe not be to we would sections. While troubling if to a conclusion incident this concern as compelled legal necessity, occasion we take thereto need nor our conclusions that neither the verdict to state Light Mississippi carry implication.” & Power Co. such (2d) 759, 760. decision then Our v. So. Thomas, Miss., upon proceeds the basis that the evidence a to conclusion inferences to be drawn reasonable case, and in this prop- coupling Dresser show therefrom, very coupling erly from connected. installed and pro- pipe question became disconnected in which the up an this court as exhibit in evidence and sent duced length. slightly six inches measures over It the case. original appendix Appellant brief an to its attached diagrams consisting photographs, twenty-four pages coupling, in- Dresser standard and cross-sections showing proper diagram cluding installation under coupling pipes so into, the be inserted should coupling center With the end in the thereof. meet end to pipe in service line section of each herein evidence inches for a distance of three inserted have been should pipes end to connect the service so as into the *25 proof jusifies end. The in this case the conclusion coup- pipes one the service was so into the inserted ling. recognized Coupling” The “Dresser in as itself is appliance per- properly a standard when is which, used, haps any type coupling, and effective safe as other by appellant prohibited proscribed and its use is not our decision.
Notwithstanding preliminary appel- statement suggestion limiting ques- lant’s of error to the the same just appellant tion discussed, contends ordi- that the City appel- nance of Yazoo is unconstitutional and brands pointed origi- lant as a callous criminal. As in our out nal decision, fact of the existence of this ordinance brought during appellant’s was first out counsel jury clearly course of trial, instructed appellant’s any duty particular that it was not to furnish type coupling if the Dresser was a stan- recognized coupling, proper type appel- dard, right constitutionality lant has a it. The use said ordinance is not involved this decision. suggestion accordingly of error is overruled.
Suggestion of error overruled.
Kirby v. State. April 11,
In Banc. 1949.
(39 770) (2d) So.