REMOVAL OF POLES.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4900, 9 November 1925, Page 1

REMOVAL OF POLES.

question of liability. POWER BOARD SEEKS ADVICE. Following on a controversy between the Morrinsville Borough Council and the Thames Valley Electric Power Board over the removal of a certain pole in Morrinsville the following opinion of Mr T. F. Martin, counsel to the Electric Power Boards’ Association, regarding the altered position of electric powder lines, and whether the power board or the local body is liable for the cost of removal, was received at Tuesday’s meeting of the Thames Valley Electric Power Board: — Vnjonhv nnmn'ration V.

“(1) In Nasenby Corporation v. Johnstone a somewhat similar position arose. The Commissioner of Telegraphs had erected a telegraph pole at the edge of a footpath. The borough council widened the footpath, thus'leaving the pole in a dangerous position and an accident occurred fbr which the borough council was sued. Mr Justice Williams allowed the claim on the ground that the poll becoming a nuisance it ceased to be a lawful erection under the Telegraph Acts, and on the further ground that the council having as the freeholder of the street power to order the removal of a nuisance thereof, and having taken no precaution, was liable for accidents caused by the position of the pole.

“(2) In the present case the power board has under the Electric Power Boards Act, 1918, section 57 (f) power to erect the .transmission line on the street that existed at the time of such erection, and this power would extend to the erection of the pole carrying the Line and also to a power in a proper case to remove ,and re-erect a pole. iOn a pole becoming a, nuisance through the altered position it assumed in consequence of the laying out of the new street the power board had clearly power to alter the position of the pole, it having become under the Nasenby case no’ longer a, lawful erection, and .the borough council would, under the same case, have been liable if it had not seen that the pole was removed. The Judge, however, apparently thought that the authority which'. erected the telegraph 'pole would also have been liable, if it had happened tb be sued. Therefore, had the pole in the present case been left in its original position both the power board and the borough council would appear to have been open tb action in case of an accident arising. It \vill be seen that in the Nasenby case, as in the present case, the pole became a nuisance, through public works having been carried out by the borough council.

“(3) In these circumstances the power board cannot in my opinion recover the cost of removal from the borough council unless the council had contracted* with the board to pay for the work. Such a contract could be validly made under .the Municipal Corporations Act, 1920, section 149, but probably no such contract wa.'s. made.

“(4) The special, circumstances of the present case would differentiate it from a claim by a local authority that the power board should, whenever the local authority so wished, alter any of the poles without cost to the local authority.”

The chairman said that the general principle of the erection and removal of poles should be referred to ’ the engineers’ committee of the Power Boards’ Association.—Agreed to.