ELECTRICAL SUPPLY

Hokitika Guardian, 23 July 1931, Page 3

ELECTRICAL SUPPLY

CONTESTED IN COURT. INTERESTING DECISION. I By Telegraph —Per Press Association) BLENHEIM, July 22. .. Whether the Marlborough Power Board, alter- declining to supply a . ratepayer with : electricity aguarantee that,’he wilt take a minimum quality 'of £3O worth tor a period of five years, can turn round and impose ail, availability rate on such a ratepayer, were questions put to the Supreme Court in an action in which Russell Tregonhiiig, of ' Scarborough, Seddon, asked for an injunction restraining the Power Board from, proceeding against him lor the recovery of the alleged availability rate. His Honour said the case was one of great interest, : as .it would have an effect all oyer New Zealand. He remarked that it was oppressive for the small man, hut the law had to he administered. At first- sight, the ease presented some -difficulties, Tint it had been well argued, and - -hd had been able ..to come to a conclusion. Ho proceeded to review the Ifaets, and stated that the plaintiff: claimed that , lie'was- not liable Tor the availabilityrate—firstly; .'because ' the energy was • not available to him at the usual far- : ifl'/ aiid, secondly, because be claimed to have' made a separate 1 contract in j. 926 for ' the supply- (if energy 'at a minimum of £ls per annum, as compared with the £3O per -annum ” now demanded as ii guarantee ’ by .the Board. . The facts, shortly, were that the land where the .p’aintiff resided. ,was not in ,thc ;Board’s early ,years contiguous to the transmission, lines, so that anything done in the way of collecting guarantees was purely tentative. In December, ]9‘ J 6, the plaintiff made an offer to the Board to pay a minimum of £ls per annum for five years. He claimed that this amounted to a contract hv him to take and nv the Board to supply electricity when it became available at his pro- I perty at £ls per. annum. . j Mis Honour was satisfied, however; , that- that was nrttrtlie legal -Tneaning’ l of the document; They were’merely j applications I ,’ and lin'd not lioeif 1 accept- y c'd by the Board. ‘Ou tlie Contrary • they were, definitely declined', find the’ plaintiff was notified that/lie could licit’ secure a supply of. electricity unless lie entered into the same guarantee as lij.s neighbours, which was £3O per annum.: TTiere was no donbl that tlie e.uergy, was available, to the. pjaintilf if ho : .iivere'i,pi"epared to. pay lor ,it at the' rates set out bv- the--,Board. 'Ho had refused, to do so, and’ it- soCnied to His Honour that the Board would hmsreve-HioK outside .its statutory au'Ti'or i ty' I ’TP’ i f' f '9ui'pT> 1 icd e HiWrW’ibCtter terms ’than’his neighbours . He found I that energy’ wfis available to • the 'PlauitifT.-’and that’ the' clami 1 to Si'sen’»iV/te contract’ coil Id ’ Hot lie maintained. Tn" these c.nfeii instances there could he no leofil of t.ocliiiiciiT’ dofoiiep

to"' ii' ’ rhtfi ,< '’!mposod l>v> ?,Lo ' Roa.rd> T!ip mnUnn for nil bo mu mi on ' would h<> flisiniksprT wit It £ls‘l os 1 'costs' nntl disl'iirsemdiits. '