MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 14 September 1928, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13tli

(Before, AV, JJeldfum, Esq., S.M.) AFTERNOON SITTING. THEFT OF ELECTRICITY. Tlio Police charged Louis Reid with tho theft of electricity, the property of Knniori Electric Ltd., of a value of £‘2B 3s 4d. Mr Elcock appeared for defendant who pleaded not guilty, and elected to ho dealt with summarily. Sergt. King said tho charge was laid under Section 222 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1902. The defendant was engaged in business in Revell Street in which electric power was installed. Tho Company had put a chock on the two meters iii tho shop. This was a meter erected on tho polo outside the shop. It was found the inside meters had been interfered with by means of a | bridge, that had prevented tho motors from registering. John Noble Robinson gavo evidence that ho was the superintendent engineer of the Ivanieri Electric Ltd. He knew defendant. Electricity had been installed on his premises from the supply of the Ivanieri Electric Ltd. There wore two meters, one for light and one for heating and power. The meters wore read onco a month. The charges for light were 8d per unit gross and for heating, etc. 3d per unit. Witness had suspected that defendant was using current for which lie was not paying through the meters. To counteract this iie erected a check in the street that connected with the defendant’s services. Through that check meter the whole of the current used by defendant would have to pass. This was put in on June Ist, the meters on tho premises having been read on 28th May. There was no simultaneous reading taken of the three meters until 20th August. The number of units on the check meter for that period was 925 and the total for the two meters in the shop was 80. In company with a constable on 20th August on obtaining entrance to the shop found an insulated wire bridging the terminals of tho meter, which resulted in by-passing the current, without it passing through the meter. Drew the attention of the defendant to thp'article, and he made no answer, appearing- to be flabbergasted. Asked him if ho had used.it on a previous occasion and ho said no. Heard him tell a constable that he had put it in that evening. Witness took possession half an hour after midnight. Asked defendant if he had put a bridge on the heating and power meter and he replied no. Received a letter dated -March 29th and one since the information was laid from defendant. The difference between the check meter and shop meter was 845 units. All the meters had been tested and found correct.

To' Mr Elcock—The shop meter was tested before being installed some sis years ago and was tested yesterday, llcid acknowledged having put the bridge on. It was the easiest method of obtaining free current. There are other ways of taking current, but the bridge method was one that could he easily removed at a moment’s notice. They had known the current was being in Ken for three months, but they had been endeavouring to find how the current was taken. The check meter was identical with that in the shop, but was covered with a galvanised cover. Next morning called again on Reid and he explained that he had been experimenting on a wireless apparatus. He said he had put tho bridge in to protect the meter, but this was not at all necessary. Defendant was supposed to have six lights in his house and shed. There may bo ten. Meters were not infallible but'they were very accurate. It Was quite feasible that that amount of current was used, if it was thought it was being got for nothing-. The meter put on the post was covered and waterproof. • To the Reach—All meters were tested and found accurate before they were put out into use. Herbert Lawn deposed he was inspector of electric meters for Ivanieri Electric Ltd. He installed the meters in defendant’s shop. One was before he went there and one after lie opened in business, the heating rand power meter. Witness put a check meter outside the premises. Had examined the meters and swichtboaid on numerous occasions and had found no leakages. Visited the premises with Robinson and the constable when the bridge was found in position. Its effect was to prevent the meter functioning. Heard defendant state he bad put the bridge on that night at 10 o’clock for the first time. Of the meters in the shop, one was correct and the other was a little slow, giving the consumer the benefit.

To Mr Elcock—Saw the bridge in position before he went into the shop that night. That was the only occasion he saw it. From the period June 2nd to July 25th 444 units were used.

Jules M. Rutland stated ho was the official meter reader for Ivanieri Electric Ltd. He gave tho various readings taken. Constable Best gave evidence that lie went to Reid's shop on August 20th at 12.35 a.m. He was admitted and went to the meter, and saw a bridge on it. Drew the attention of defendant to it, and he said “That’s - all right.” Witness said that was not al 1 right and went to the front door and called the two electricians. Mr Rolnnson came in and removed the bridge. Before removing it, Robinson showed witness the meter and pointed out the mechanism was not working, lull when the bridge was removed the mechanism worked. That night took a statement from Reid that he signed. When on night duty, witness had found a light at the back always going.

To Mr IDlcoek—Reid took witness straight to the meter. Tliis was tlieca.se for the prosecution. For the defence Mr Elcock led the following evidence: — Louis Reid deposed he was the defendant. He was a fishvendor in Hokitika. His dwelling house was attached to the shop. He only sold fish, lie did not cook it. His lamps used 5(10 volts. He did not have them all going, portion was used only a couple of hours :: week, others for two hours a night and the shop till 11 o’clock. The radiatoi was only used on one occar.ion. It. was impossible to have used the amount of current he was charged with. He had never had all his lights on at once. Ho had never used the radiator off the light. He had only the bridge on the meter on one occasion. It would be a crude method of stealing power. When asked when the bridge was taken off, he did not give an explanation. AVitness had been experimenting with an electrical device. AVitness knew the check meter was checking his I meter, three months ago. The radiator wits shut off every night. The bridge could he removed in a fraction of a second. [To swore definitely tliaf lie had only used the power that had come through the meter. He was r registered electric linesman, and had served his apprenticeship at Alanches ter and had 24 years experience.

To Sergt. King—Ho had changed lb' globes when some had been broken Aleters generally were fairly accurate. He knew that there was a check meter at the time he put in the bridge. He was not using current when the bridge was on ; tiie attachment being a concentrator. Tie had never on any other occasion used a bridge on his meters. He denied that two bridges wore on his meters on June 20th. tie had never

placed them there, except on the one occasion, 20th August. To -Mr Elcoek—When the wireless oxperiinent was on, no light was being used. He had used this apparatus on several occasions, when the bridge was not on the meters. Andrew Watson, a lad nf lfi years, deposed lie worked for Mr lieid and gave evidence of the use of light and power of a normal nature. This was the case for the defence. COURT’S DECISION. llis Worship tn giving judgment stated the Kanieri Electric Ltd. supplied electricty to defendant. They had suspicion that the power was being tampered with and put in a check motor which showed £2B Ils 4d more (ttrrenk was used than the inside meters recorded. It was not a question about the reliability of the meters. It was proved that defendant had used a bridge that had the effect of preventing the motor recording the current used. Defendant stated he had only used it on one occasion. It was a perfectly clear case. He held that the defendant had used electricity which the meters did not record owing to ho tampering with the meters. It means that he is guilty of theft. The question of the amount used was for a civil action to decide. Defendant would Pc convicted and lined £2O, with witnesses expenses £2 2s. At the request of counsel four months was allowed Ini' payment at £5 per month.