stream and, as it passes across appellants' farm, its banks are timbered and grown up in brush. In some places it is shallow and in other places deep, so that, in dry times, there are pools of water with riffles between. The system devised for sewer district No. 5 is known as a combined sanitary and storm water system. The general plan calls for a network, or lattice, of lateral sewers connected with the houses in the district, gathering the sanitary sewage from the houses and the storm, or surface, water from the streets, sidewalks, and buildings, and carrying both into larger mains. This network of mains or pipes is divided into two sections, one serving the north and middle parts of the district, and the other serving the southeast part of the district. The first section is so laid out that the contents of the lateral mains converge and flow into a large concrete main or pipe, having a diameter of 8 feet, which in turn discharges into a concrete basin, called an "interceptor." The second section converges and flows into another concrete main or pipe having a diameter of 51 inches, which in turn empties into a second concrete basin, or interceptor. These two concrete basins, or interceptors, contain grit-chambers, so-called, the purpose of which is to collect the inorganic matter brought down by the sewers, such as sand, gravel, rock, and other hard matter. This collected inorganic matter is removed periodically. The concrete basins or interceptors are approximately 30 feet long, 10 feet wide, and 5 or 6 feet deep. At the lower end of each basin is a slot or opening two feet wide, which converges into a 21-inch pipe connecting the two interceptors, and thence into a 21-inch main or pipe, which runs underground for a distance of two miles to the Mississippi river. The 21-inch main is designed with a carrying capacity sufficient to take care of all the sanitary sewage and surface water of the district except in times of rainfall when the "runoff" exceeds one-half inch; the "run-off" being equivalent to a halfinch rainfall when the ground is so thoroughly saturated with moisture that it will no longer absorb. the rainfall. When the storm water and sanitary sewage flowing into the interceptors exceeds the carry-ing capacity of the 21-inch main, the excess overflows into what is called an "outlet ditch," 7 feet wide at the bottom. 25 feet wide at the top, and 8 to 10 feet deep. A short distance from where the outlet ditch leaves the interceptors, it runs into Painter Spring branch, and thence into Cape La Croix creek. This outlet ditch picks up the water coming out of both interceptors after the 21-inch main is filled to its capacity, and carries the overflow, consisting of storm water and sanitary sewage, Painter through Spring branch into Cape La Croix creek, and thence into the Mississippi river some 2 miles distant. The 21-inch main has a carrying capacity of 5 cubic feet per second, and is so designed that the sanitary sewage will not flow into the outlet ditch except at times when the carrying capacity of the 21-inch main is inadequate to carry the flow from the system. The interceptors are not designed for use as settling basins or septic tanks, but are chambers designed to collect heavy substances so as to prevent the obstruction of the 21-inch main. designing the system, future growth and development of the district was taken into consideration by the engineers. It was estimated that the district will have an ultimate population of 12,240 people, and, by using an established engineering formula, it was estimated that the system will ultimately produce, when fully populated, a maximum flow of sanitary sewage of about 14 cubic feet per second. From such hypothesis, it was determined to use a 21-inch main, which is of sufficient capacity to carry off nearly four times the amount of sanitary sewage expected to be produced in In (Mo., 284 S. W. 471.) the district when it is fully populated. The method of sewage disposal used in this system is known as sewage disposal by dilution. By underground to the Mississippi river, except the overflow in times of rain; that under no circumstances will any solid sewage matter be deposited upon appellants' land; that there will be nothing deposited thereon to kill the grass or crops or to produce odors or discoloration; that the sewer system is so designed that, in case of a fast falling rain, sufficient to tax the carrying capacity of the 21-inch main, the maximum discharge or overflow through the outlet ditch will reach Cape La Croix creek in 20 minutes, whereas it will take some 2 or 3 hours for the water falling from the same rain in the Cape La Croix creek watershed to reach flood crest at the junction of the creek with Painter Spring branch, which will have the effect of washing and scouring out all objectionable sewage matter which might be carried into the creek from the outlet ditch; and that, as the rain ceases, Cape La Croix creek will continue running in flood a considerable time after the sanitary sewage ceases to flow through the outlet ditch and recedes into the 21-inch main. this method, sanitary sewage is discharged into a running stream or body of water of sufficient capacity that the proportion of river or storm water to sewage is considered large enough as not to constitute a nuisance or menace to public health. Respondent offered evidence that the dilution method of disposal is used almost exclusively by Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City, and other large centers of population, and that about 40,000,000 people in the United States are using sewer systems, of which about 85 per cent. dispose of sewage by the dilution method. Respondent's evidence also tends to show that the ratio of 30 parts of water to one part of domestic, or sanitary, sewage is generally accepted by sanitary engineers as sufficient to prevent a nuisance; that ordinary sanitary sewage contains 99.8 per cent. water and .2 per cent. organic matter; that dilution with water tends to destroy sewage; that the organic matter will become attenuated, or broken up, by the process of dilution; that when the flow from the sewer system into the interceptors overflows the 21-inch pipe and passes from the outlet ditch and through Painter Spring branch into Cape La Croix creek, the ratio of dilution ground, and stagnant pools of blood will be 800 parts of water to one part of sanitary sewage; that after the overflow reaches Cape La Croix creek, but before it is sufficient to overflow appellants' land, the ratio of dilution is 1,600 parts of water to one part of sanitary sewage, or more than 50 times the dilution that will prevent a nuisance; and that, in times of flood, when Cape La Croix creek will overflow appellants' land, the ratio of dilution will be 3,000 to 4,000 parts of water to one part of sanitary sewage; that the 21-inch sewer main was designed to, and will, conduct the sanitary sewage each day of the year Respondent's proof also tends to show that several slaughterhouses are located on the banks of Cape La Croix creek above appellants' farm; that the sanitary conditions of these slaughterhouses are bad; that entrails of animals are permitted to accumulate and and decay decay on the are permitted to remain, and that such refuse and blood drains into the creek; that throughout the sewer district there are more than 100 open cesspools, contiguous to, and which seep and drain into, Painter Spring branch and Cape La Croix creek, and the waters of those streams are polluted by the waste and drainage from these cesspools and slaughterhouses; that, under conditions existing before the completion and operation of the sewer system, refuse matter is constantly flowing into Cape La Croix creek and polluting its waters, but, when the sewer system goes into opera tion, the existing conditions will be greatly improved and sanitary sewage will pass into the stream only in time of heavy rains; that analyses of samples of water taken from different points along the creek, including appellants' farm, before the completion and operation of the sewer system, showed B. coli and organic matter, rendering it unfit for human use although it could be safely used as stock water; and that the use of the water course for a sewer outlet at times of rainfall will not make conditions worse, but should remedy and improve existing conditions. Appellants' evidence tends to show that all of the storm water and sewage brought down by the system, and not carried away by the 21-inch pipe, will flow down the outlet ditch into Cape La Croix creek; that, when the sewer system is running at full capacity, only about six gallons out of a thousand will pass out through the 21-inch pipe, and the balance of the storm water and sewage will pass out into Cape La Croix creek; that Cape La Croix creek, as it flows through appellants' farm, is very crooked, and its banks are grown up with brush, and in some places the stream is shallow and at other places deep; that in dry times it stands in pools; that the sewage will settle and deposit along the banks of the stream and will be caught by the trees, brush, and fences along the banks and in the existing pools; that these deposits will be decaying organic matter and will produce offensive odors; that oil and grease from kitchens will not mix with water, and there will be no dilution of that matter; that oils and fats will deposit and accumulate on appellants' lands and become a media for germ and bacterial growth; that typhoid bacilli will live on such matter for a period of eight or ten months and retain the power to produce typhoid fever; that the only pollution of the creek water, prior to the operation of the sewer system, is what is washed from the ground in the Cape La Croix creek watershed, and that the amount thereof is small; that after the sewer system is completed and in operation it will tend to collect sewage in much larger amounts; and that therefore the pollution of the creek will be greatly increased over existing conditions. Appellants' evidence further tends to show that, after the 21inch sewer pipe has been constructed along the 10-foot strip of land, the ground will likely settle and cave in; that the plan calls for laying the 21-inch pipe eight feet below the surface of the ground and for constructing manholes every 400 feet across appellants' land, or a total of seven manholes; that these manholes are made of brick and extend from 6 inches to one foot above the surface of the ground and are 24 inches in diameter at the top; that the manholes will be obstructions and will interfere with plowing and harrowing of the ground, and the use of farm machinery thereon; that the nonarable soil from 10 feet underground will be placed on the surface; that the land is then in timothy and being used for pasture and that the surface will be torn up and disturbed, requiring a long time before it can be used or cultivated. Appellants' witnesses fixed the reasonable market value of appellants' farm and improvements at $200 to $225 per acre, or an aggregate value of $64,000 to $72,000, and estimated appellants' damage, or decrease in the market value of the farm, by reason of the several rights or uses sought to be taken and condemned, at from 25 to 30 per cent. of its then market value. Respondent's evidence shows that the strip of land taken for the 21inch sewer main contains six-tenths of an acre; that the strip crosses the north end of the farm and is subject to overflow; that, after the operation of the sewer, it will be necessary for two men to go into the manholes for the purpose of cleaning the sewer perhaps once each year. It was also shown that the (Mo. —, 284 S. W. 471.) contract and specifications for the construction of the sewer require the contractor to replace the soil on the strip of land in the same condition in which it is found. Respondent's witnesses fixed the market value of appellants' farm at from $125 to $150 per acre as a whole, and the value of the land taken for the 21-inch sewer at from $150 to $175 per acre. The total damage to appellants' farm on account of all the rights or uses taken and condemned was fixed by respondent's witnesses at from $50 to $1,000. Numerous errors are assigned by appellants, which will be considered and ruled by us in their order. I. At the beginning of the trial, counsel for appellants inquired of the jurors: "Do any of you gentlemen own property in sewer district No. 5?" A number (not shown by the record) of the jurors answered in the affirmative. Whereupon, counsel for appellants objected to jurors who are residents of the district for the reason that they are interested, and the court thereupon replied: "Objection overruled. The record may show the action of the court in refusing to excuse from the jury residents and taxpayers of the district." Exceptions were duly saved and appellants assign error in the trial court's refusal to excuse such jurors from the panel. It is argued by appellants that those jurors who own property in the sewer district have a special and peculiar financial interest in the outcome of the case, in that the cost of acquiring rights of way for the sewer system is paid by special tax levied and assessed upon the real property within the district. At common law, inhabitants and taxpaying citizens of a municipality were held to be incompetent to sit as jurors in a cause wherein the municipality was a party, because of their interest, though remote, by being compelled to contribute their mite to the payment of any judgment obtained against the municipality. A number of early decisions 47 A.L.R.-3. of this court recognized and adhered to the common-law rule. Eberle v. St. Louis Public Schools, 11 Mo. 247; Fine v. St. Louis Public Schools, 30 Mo. 166; Rose v. St. Charles, 49 Mo. 509; Fulweiler v. St. Louis, 61 Mo. 479. Since those early decisions, the Legislature has enacted a statute (Mo. Rev. Stat. 1919, § 6637), which provides: "In all actions brought by or against any county or city, the inhabitants of the county or city so suing or being sued may be jurors, if otherwise competent and qualified." Appellants insist that the foregoing statute is in derogation of the common law and hence must be strictly construed. The Legislature, however, in 1917 (Laws 1917, p. 324), repealed our former statute relating to the common law and enacted a new section in lieu thereof which provides: 66 But no act of the General Assembly or law of this state shall be held to be invalid, or limited in its scope or effect by the courts of this state, for the reason that the same may be in derogation of, or in conflict with, such common law, or with such statutes or acts of Parliament; but all such acts of the General Assembly, or laws, shall be liberally construed, so as to effectuate the true intent and meaning thereof." Mo. Rev. Stat. 1919, § 7048. In Priddy v. Mackenzie, 205 Mo. loc. cit. 195, 103 S. W. 972, we said: "This court has, however, repeatedly held in actions against counties and cities that taxpaying inhabitants thereof are not competent jurors on account of interest in the cause. [Citing cases.] And (as) such was the law of this state in so far as jurors were concerned until it was changed by express statute in 1855. (Rev. Stat. 1855, p. 503, $9; Rev. Stat. 1899, § 3790). Since the enactment of that statute qualifying jurors in such cases, the probabilities are the courts would not go to the same length . . . as this court went in the cases which held the jurors were disqualified. But be that as it may, the cases from this state show the high degree of disfavor with which the law looks upon trials conducted by interested parties." Our attention has not been directed by counsel to any other decision of this court construing or referring to our statute which qualifies the inhabitants of a city as jurors in actions brought by or against such city. Similar statutes of other jurisdictions have been uniformly upheld and liberally construed. 16 R. C. L. 279; State use of County Ct. v. R. M. Hudson Paving & Constr. Co. 95 W. Va. 610, 122 S. E. 173; Wichita Water Co. v. Wichita, 98 Kan. 256, 158 Pac. 49; Minneapolis v. Wilkin, 30 Minn. 140, 14 N. W. 581, 15 N. W. 668; Johnston v. Rankin, 70 N. C. 550; State, Bowker, Prosecutrix, V. Wright, 54 N. J. L. 130, 23 Atl. 116. The record in the instant case does not disclose that counsel for appellants pursued their inquiry further on voir dire examination to determine the impartiality of the jurors who were owners of property in the sewer district. While we believe that trial courts should use great caution in the selection of impartial jurors in the trial of causes, and that, upon the slightest showing of partiality or bias, a juror should be excused by the trial court, we cannot say in the instant case, in view of to excuse juror- the existing statute, that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to excuse as jurors property owners in the sewer district. Appeal-refusal error. II. One of the commissioners appointed by the court to assess the damages in this proceeding appeared at the trial as a witness for respondent city. He was permitted, over the objections of appellants, to testify to his appointment as a commissioner. Appellants assign as prejudicial error the refusal of the trial court to strike out such testimony. The point arose in this man ner: "Q. Do you know, or have you made a study of, the plan for the sewage disposal of that sewer district? A. Somewhat. I am familiar with it. "Q. Do you know the general outline of the plan for taking care of the sewage in that district? A. Yes. "Q. In what connection did you make a study of those plans, Mr. Hawley? A. I made a brief study of them with a view to bidding on the work, but nothing extensive. "Q. Have you subsequent to that time made any further investigation of them? A. I looked them over a little one time since then. "Q. When was that? A. In December. "Q. What connection did you have with them at the time that led you to make a study of them? I was appointed on the commission to go on the Hunze land. A. "Mr. Spradling, Appellants' Counsel: Object; ask that be stricken out, because not defensive and highly prejudicial. "The Court: Objection overruled. (To which ruling of the court the exceptors by their counsel then and there duly excepted.)" Later on witness testified further: "Q. Now, Mr. Hawley, I will ask you to state whether or not in your opinion as an engineer and from your investigations that you have made of the plan for sewage disposal for district No. 5 in this city, and your investigation of the way those plans will affect the Hunze lands, whether or not those lands will be damaged as a result of this sewer construction and, if so, to what extent? A. I don't think they will be damaged at all by the flow into Cape La Croix creek. I believe there will be some damage by reason of the 30-inch pipe crossing nearly half a mile of Mr. Hunze's land. "Q. Tell the jury what in your opinion that damage would amount to. A. It is a little bit hard to arrive at. It does not damage the whole farm at all. It merely damages the north end of the 80 acres it runs through, and I would say |