SEPARATE RATE.

Auckland Star, Volume LVX, Issue 268, 12 November 1934, Page 8

SEPARATE RATE.

BOARD PREVENTED. PALMERSTON NORTH DISPUTE " HONOURABLE AGREEMENT." (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. The Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, to-day delivered judgment in the case of the Mayor, councillors and citizens of Palmerston North and A. E. Mansford. plaintiffs, against the Manawatu-Oroua Power Board. He says the real question in the case, as he views it, is whether the plaintiff city is entitled to an injunction to restrain the board from levying, enforcing or collecting a separate rate in Palmerston North. Traversing the agreement, he says in effect that the city was to obtain power at the same price as the board itself paid the Government, plus a service charge of £200 per quarter, with certain idditions which he need not indicate in detail. The effect was that the city was able to supply electricity to its inhabitants at lower prices than those the board charged consumers within other portions of its area. The city had its own plant, which was still required for standby purposes, and its own reticulation, the whole cost of which had been borne by the city. "Consumers' League" Set Up. The advantageous position of citizens gave rise to dissatisfaction in other parts of the board's district, and led to the formation of an association, called the Manawatu-Oroua Electricity Consumers' Association, formed for the purpose of forcing the city to abandon its rights and advantages under the existing agreement and of bringing about the consequences desired by the promoters of the association. An endeavour was made to induce the city to sell its undertakings to the board and join in the board's scheme, so that the inhabitants of the city would pay the same price as country consumers. If that endeavour failed, there would be an effort to obtain legislation to achieve the result. If that, too, was unsuccessful, then a separate rate was to be levied on the city.

The judgment goes on to speak of the subsequent election of a "ticket" of the association's nominees. After the election in May, 1932, one of the first things the board did was to appoint an executive committee, consisting of seven, five of whom had just been pledged to the association's aims. The idea of constituting an execntive committee consisting of a majority of the board was quite a new one, and the result would almost inevitably be that whatever decisions or recommendations the executive committee made would, practically with certainty, be confirmed or adopted by the board. Injunction Wanted. His Honor goes on to say that, having failed in the first two a'ims, of purchase and obtaining legislation, a majority of the board, according to programme, proceeded with the third. He could not impute to the Legislature an intention to authorise a board, after entering into an honourable commercial agreement, by means of a deliberately self-imposed increase of its estimated deficiency and the exercise of its rating power, to take away the benefits conferred by the agreement, because it found the agreement somewhat unsatisfactory and objectionable to some of its constituents. He holds that the injunction must go to the extent of restraining the board from giving effect to and from enforcing or collecting a separate rate.