STRATFORD LIGHTING.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVI, Issue 59, 15 July 1913, Page 7

STRATFORD LIGHTING.

THE DISPUTE WITH THE COMPANY.

The lighting question was before the Borough Council a good deal at its meeting, last night.

TOWN HALL LIGHTING. The Town Hall ■Committee reported: Your committee beg to report having considered the question of the Town Hall tariff, and have no recommend-

ation to make. Your committee are

of the opinion that 16 c.p. lights should be used in the hall in place of 32 c.p. now used. The meter was specially read before and after a recent entertainment, and during a period of about four hours the current consumed amounted to 37 units.—Cr. King said the committee, in view of the amount of current used, could not see its way to recommend the lowering of the tariff.

LIGHTING COMMITTEE’S REPORT j The Lighting Committee reported: J. We have no recommendation to 'make re light, applied for on Flint Road East. 2. A Jeter has been received from the Electric Light Co. referring to the new street lights, and your committee recommend that it be replied to in terms of letter drafted by your committee. The Town Clerk will read the letter proposed to bo sent. 3. We recommend that the Electrical Supply Co. be notified .that the current supplied by them has been registered by voltmeter, which is certified to as correct by the Government Electrician, and been erected under i Government supervision; that the (charts show that the current supplied is not of the voltage required in terras 'of the deed of concession, and that j the Council require this remedied iforthwith; that the company be ad--1 vised also that the voltimeter charts may be inspected by the company’s engineer.—The report was adopted.

COMPANY TO COUNCIL. I The following letter from the secretary of the Electrical Supply Company was read:—We are in receipt jof your memo of April 15th last, stating that your Council is not prepared to pay .for current for any street lights until they are used. We would draw your attention to the fact that whrfrMflmr committee met Messrs Masters, Porritt and Cameron, representing this company, in November, 1912, we were distinctly given to understand that the lights were to he charged as from April Ist, 1913, this being the .most suitable date, as it was the beginning of your financial year. The loffe rj from this company to your Council for £3 per , light for double the 1 number of lights from April Ist was , turned <Jo\yn on account of your Council regretting they could not accept the offer. We thoroughly understood | that the lights mere td'bh Charged US ; from the date agreed upon in the former offer, and your instructions were that we had to have the lines erected to enable the lamps to be placed in their positions by April Ist. To keep our part of the agreement it became imperative for us to go to the extra expense ofr cabling for the necessary wire and to employ additional labour to meet yoUi' 1 Wishes'/ The position your Council now take up is most unfair inasrinich 1 that jdui 1 could put us to the expense of erecting these lines and poles and then you could if you so wished decline to cohnect the lights, and our expended capital would be unremunerative 'during your pleasure. We would also point out that wc gave you ample notice that sufficient work was done to enable yon to accept tenders for wiring and erecting the lamp brackets, as a notice was sent you on February 22nd, notifying that eleven poles were ready and that erection could be commenced. Under date March 20th another letter was sent, notifying you that the whole of the poles were then ready, and on March 31st the whole was complete, With the exception of three short lengths of wire, which had been overlooked. In spite of this information your contract for erecting the lights was not let until the second week in April, and erection was not completed until the last week in May. Under those circumstances we submit that our claim is a just one and quite in accord with the spirit that was intended when the two committees agreed. We recognise, however, that although morally our claim is a fair and just one, legally we cannot succeed, as we have not the agreement in writing. This, however, should not be necessary in a matter of this kind between two such bodies as your Council and this company. COUNCIL TO COMPANY.

The Town Clerk read the following letter drafted by the Lighting Com-

mittee

Replying to yours of 24th ult: Ibis Council is of opinion that the question of Greeting 26 new lights was not discussed at the conference between your representatives and the Council committee held in November, 1912. The Council wrote you on November 13th, 1912, notifying that 26 now lights were desired by April Ist, but no contract was implied. In your letter under reply you state that the whole was complete on March 31st, 1913, with the exception of three short lengths of wire which had been overlooked. The Council consider that it would be most unreasonable for you to expect them to proceed with erection of brackets until the whole of your work was complete, and it is quite clear that reasonbale time was necessary to erect the brackets Apart from this the necessary wiring was not fully competed until May 30th, two months

liter Quite apart from the foregoing

the Council consider that your claim Vor current which was not consumed ’.mounted to a claim for payment for so-mthing which was not received, m 1 therefore is not, morally or legally, in any degree a fair or just one. Mv Council begs to draw your attention to the fact that for those occas-

ions when- the current has failed and the town has been in darkness no reduction lias as yet been made in the monthly acocunt.