LIGHT THAT FAILED

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 150, 18 February 1932, Page 6

LIGHT THAT FAILED

Our Own fcorrespondent) .

WHAKATANE CASE

MAN BEFORE COURT FOR TAMPERING WITH POWER ARRANGED THE WIRES

(From

WHAKATANE, Wednesday. A man named Cecil Edward Anthony Buller, of Whakatane, a signwriter, appeared before Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., to-day on a charge of tampering with electrical appliances. Mr. L. Buddle appeared for the informant, Mr. F. W. Lysaght, Whakatane Borough Council electrical engineer. Defendant who was represented by Mr. W. E. Ward, pleaded not guilty. The engineer, in evidence, stated that in September owing to Buller having failed to pay arrears of electric light, the power was cut off from premises occupied by himself and ar.other A. L. Bunning (who had not yet been served with a summons) . In December in company with Mr. W. Cartright he visited defendant's premises and noticed that the lights were going. He knocked at the door and immediately the lights were extinguished, but on asking where the light came from, he was told that it was from an acetylene lamp. "Both In On It" He entered the premises and asked where the switch was and on turning it on the lights appeared. He asked who had tampered with the lights, but could not get any information as to who was responsible except that Buller seemed to int'imate that they were both in on it. When the light was cut off, the fuse was taken out and apparently wires had been arranged so that both Bunning and Buller had the use of the light. Corroborative evidence was given by Mr. W. Cartright. Mr. Ward for defendant submitted that there was no case to meet in as much that no evidence had been produced to show that Buller had tampered with the lights. Buller was a signwriter and had no knowledge sufficient to carry out the delicate work necessary to complete the reinstallation of the lights. Case to Meet His Worship considered that there was a case to meet, that Buller knew the work was being carried out, and was an aceessory to the fact and therefore as much liable as the offender. In giving evidence, Buller stated that he was living at premises at George Street in two shops wliich had been made into one. He occupied one and Bunning occupied the other. The meter was in his shop. He did not tamper with same, although he knew that the offenee had been committed. He had since paid all the arrears of light due also the power which had been used through tlm tampering with the meter. His Worship stated that he considered that Bifiler recognised he was in the wrong, but had tried to malce amends. He would be convicted and ordered to pay costs 10/- and solieitor's fee £2 2s*.