SLOT METERS

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 171, 6 August 1937, Page 9

SLOT METERS

-Press Atsociation.)

Cost oi Electricity in Dispnte COUNCIL LOSES CASE

(B.v Toleeraph-

INVERCARGILL, Last Night. A decision in a case whioh is deeenbed as being one of importance to city corporations and electricity consumers throughout New Zealand was given to-day by Hr. W. H. Freeman, S.M. Plaintiff was the Invercargill City Council, which proceeded against j Thomas Verdon Mahoney on a claim for £1 4s, the alleged balance owing on an account for electricity supplied to him. In. his judgment the Magistrate said that in May, 1934, plaintifi installed in defendant's premises a shilling-in-the-slot electricity meter and he signed an t agreement wheroby he agreed to take a supply and pay for it at rates from time to time fixed by the council. Defendant said he had been given to understand that when the meter was installed, one ihilling placed in it paid for one unit and no additional charge " would be made. That was to say, his liability ended on placing a shilling in the slot. That position appeared to have been accepted by the council 'a officers from May until December, 1934, when someone discovered that the charge of a shilling per unit was not in accordance with the council 's resolution, .which fixed the charges at 6$d per unit with a minimum of 2s 3d a month. The accounts from January, 1935, onward showed that the minimum of 2s 3d per month was charged defendant with the exception. of February, 1935, when only three units at 6$d were charged and the council had credited defendant with the shillings placed in the meter. When it came to'the knowledge of defendant that the minimum charge was 2s 3d a month he repudiated the position and refused to pay. After some months of his refusal, his cnrrent was cut off. The council xelied on the contract signed by the defendant on May 31, 1934, as the agreement to pay the rates fixed by the council. The "method of charging ' ' was left blank. The Magistrate said he was satisfied defendant was given to understand that a shilling-in-the-slot ended his liability and that clearly appeared .to have been understood by the officers of the council for some months. No subsequent agreement was entered into. Defendant was, therefore, entitled co judgment,