Noble v. City of Bethany , 206 Okla. 122 ( 1951 )


Menu:
  • HALLEY, V. C. J.

    The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the lower court. The plaintiffs alleged, and it was admitted, that they were the *123owners of certain lands located in sec. 4, twp 12 N., range 4 W., Oklahoma county, Oklahoma, and that they had owned the property since 1925; that in August, 1925, a dam was constructed on a stream of water that crossed said land, creating a lake of approximately eight acres. The lake was stocked with fish, and plaintiffs and their families and friends used it for fishing and recreational purposes for a number of years. That the defendant constructed a sewage disposal plant at 50th and College streets, just north of the corporate limits of the defendant city, approximately two years after plaintiffs acquired the property. It was further alleged that the sewage disposal plant was at the head of the stream of water, or natural water course, flowing across the land belonging to plaintiffs, and that the effluence of the sewage disposal plant was discharged into the water course or stream which flowed across the land and into the lake belonging to plaintiffs; that the amount of sewage flowing through the disposal plant was greatly in excess of the capacity of the plant, and that by reason thereof there was discharged into the water raw and untreated sewage, and that the water in the lake belonging to plaintiffs was polluted, thereby destroying the lake for any useful purpose, and that same created a nuisance; that the fish in the lake died, and that it was no longer of any value as a fishing stream and lake and useless for any purpose whatever; and that the officials of the defendant city knew of this condition and failed to take measures to improve it' and that for two years prior to the time of filing of the action, plaintiffs had been so damaged.

    The defendant claimed that it was in no way responsible for the condition alleged.

    The case was tried to a jury, and a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs for $7,500. On the motion for a new trial, the trial court granted a new trial for the specific reason, as he stated, that he had committed error in admitting in evidence plaintiffs’ Exhibits “A” and “B”, and that his sole reason for granting a new trial was that Exhibits “A” and “B” were not admissible, and that his action in permitting those exhibits to be admitted in evidence was error, and that he considered it sufficient error that a new trial should be had.

    The sole question in this case is whether or not it was error to admit exhibits “A” and “B” for the plaintiffs.

    Plaintiffs’ Exhibit “A” was a letter written by J. P. Hutchinson to H. J. Darcey under date of April 16, 1947. It was an inter-office memorandum sent to the Chief Engineer of the Bureau of Sanitary Engineering by J. P. Hutchinson, Chief Chemist, both of the State Department of Health. But it is not competent for the reason that it is not the type of official document that is contemplated by the statute as being admissible in evidence, as it is not required or authorized to be filed in any public office. We are of the opinion that Exhibit “B,” which was a letter written by Henry J. Darcey, Chief Engineer, to E. C. Hall, mayor of the defendant city, on March 5, 1946, for E. F. Matthews, M. D., the Commissioner of Health, who is the head of the State Department of Health, is inadmissible. This letter was written in regard to the Bethany sewer system, and is as follows:

    “State Department of Health
    “State of Oklahoma
    “3400 North Eastern
    “Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
    “March 5, 1946
    “Bethany Sewer System
    “Mr. E. C. Hall, Mayor
    “Bethany, Oklahoma.
    “Dear Sir:
    “We have learned that a project providing for the construction of a sewer extension to serve Cockrell Addition of Bethany, Oklahoma, is under consideration by the city officials. The need for this sewer line is not questioned, for at the present time some of the property is being served by individual septic tanks, which have proved to be unsatisfactory, particularly in wet weather.
    *124“Before this project is officially submitted to this office for approval as required by law, I think it is only right that the city officials be informed of the position the Health Department will have to take in view of the past history of the Bethany sewer system and sewage disposal plant. In checking back through our files to 1941, I find that numerous written complaints have been received from property owners, below the outfall sewer, and there have been many verbal complaints that I know of.
    “Representatives of the Department have made repeated inspections of the plant and the stream below the plant, and reports on the findings together with our recommendations should be on file in the city office.
    “If you will review this file, you will find that we have repeatedly called attention to the need for improving the plant in order to produce an effluent which will not cause complaint.
    “During the past few years, the population of Bethany has increased, with a corresponding increase in sewage flow. Yet it has been possible to discourage the filing of damage suits, in order to permit the city officials the opportunity to carry out our recommendations for the improvement of the sewage plant. Considering these facts, it would not be reasonable for the Department to approve extensions to the sewer system, which would increase the load on the plant and aggravate conditions in the stream below the plant. Therefore, it is our hope that immediate consideration will be given the proposition providing for an adequate sewage disposal plant. As soon as definite assurance can be given that the plant improvement will be made, then sewer extension projects will be welcomed by this Department.
    “Very truly yours,
    “G. F. Mathews, M. D.,
    “Commissioner of Health,
    “By H. J. Darcey, Chief Engineer, Director, Bureau of Sanitary Engineering.”

    This letter is not such an official document as is contemplated by our statute as being admissible. See Title 12, §§486 and 502, O.S. 1941. In our opinion, this letter was not admissible under Kansas City Life Insurance Co. v. Meador, 186 Okla. 397, 98 P. 2d 20." This was not a report that had to be kept in the office of the State Department of Health, as in Town of Sentinel v. Riley, 171 Okla. 533, 43 P. 2d 742. The letter itself shows that it was based on hearsay, and our decision in Hadley v. Ross, 195 Okla. 89, 154 P. 2d 939, makes it inadmissible. We find no provision in the statutes requiring or authorizing the filing of this letter.

    The trial court came to the conclusion that both Exhibits A and B were incompetent and that their admission had prejudiced the jury against the defendant. This was tantamount to a determination that the defendant had not had a fair trial, Under such circumstances, it was the trial court’s duty to grant a new trial in the proper exercise of judicial discretion.

    Affirmed.

    WELCH, CORN, DAVISON, JOHNSON, and BINGAMAN, JJ., concur.

Document Info

Docket Number: 34421

Citation Numbers: 241 P.2d 401, 206 Okla. 122

Judges: Bingaman, Corn, Davison, Gibson, Halley, Johnson, Welch

Filed Date: 11/13/1951

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/22/2023