Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

APPEAL COURT.

A FEILDING CASE.

BOROUGH COUNCIL v. GAS CO

(Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, April 2. This afternoon the Appeal Court began the hearing of tho case, Fielding Borough Council v. Feilding Gas Co. Plaintiffs brought an action against the company claiming an injunction to restrain the company ' from interfering with tho streots of tho borough in laying mains, and the Borough Counciil also claimed that its agreement with the company was ultra vires of the corporation. and should bo declared void. An agreement was entered into in from 1896 to 1906. The borough required the company to extend its mains to tho suburbs and to light several street lamps, hitherto lit with koroseno. The company declined, claiming they were not bound to do So by the agreement. The borough then began negotiations for the purchase of the works, but nothing came of it. The chief question was whether the company could sell to private consumers. The opinion of the Court was asked—(l) Whether tho agreement was valid, seeing that tho council bad granted concessions beyond its power to validly grant; (2) whether the council, on the assumption that tho company had performed its obligations under the agreement, had a right to the injunction claimed; (3) whether, on the samo assumption, the company was entitled to exclusive right of supplying gas (a) to the council, or (b) to the inhabitants of the borough; (4) whether the assignment agreement to the company was valid at law; and (5) if not, whether tho council was stopped by its conduct in recognising and dealing with tho company from denying the validity of the assignment. Mr. Bell, K.C., for the plaintiffs, contended that tho borough was prohibited by tho terms of section 371 of the Municipal Corporation Act of 1886 from contracting an action with tho company to supply gas to inhabitants of the borough. The only course was to contract for a supply to tho borough itself. Iho agreement was therefore ultra vires and void. The Court adjourned until next morning. _____

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GIST19080403.2.16

Bibliographic details

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2156, 3 April 1908, Page 2

Word Count
338

APPEAL COURT. Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2156, 3 April 1908, Page 2

APPEAL COURT. Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2156, 3 April 1908, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert