lam referred to the case of the District v. The Washington Gaslight Company, de-
cided by the general term of this court in the case of 30 D. C., 39. This was an action
brought by one Marietta Parker against the District of Columbia for damages for in-
jury received by the plaintiff by reason of a certain open gas box placed and main-
tained in the sidewalk and street by the Gaslight Company for its own benefit, the
Slaintiff averin^ that the injury was caused by the failure of duty on the part of the
►istrict in permitting the said open gas box to exist in the said sidewalk or highway.
The plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment and a suit by the District against the
company was for the recovery of the amount of the judgment. The court neld that
the gas boxes connected with the service pipes was a part of the apparatus of the com-
pany, and it being shown that the company had notice of the suit for damages with
opportunity to intervene and defend, it was held liable to the plaintiff for the amount
of the judgment paid by the latter.
In the opinion, the court said, "That notwithstanding the cost of making the lateral
connection, including the gas box in question was paid by the lot owner that structure
was put there by the defendant in the exercise of its own exclusive authority, and was,
in contemplation of law a part of its own apparatus, and that it was the duty of the
company to exercise a reasonable supervision of the gas box placed by it in the streets
of Washington.
