ELECTRICITY CHARGE

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 266, 6 August 1937, Page 12

ELECTRICITY CHARGE

City Council’s Case Fails By Telegraph—Press Association. Invercargill, August 8. A decision in a case which was described as being oue of iuiportauee to city corporations’ electricity consumers throughout New Zealand was given today by Mr. W. 11. Freeman, S.M. Plaintiff was the Invercargill City Council, which proceeded against Thomas Verdon Mahoney on a claim for £l/4/-, alleged to be balance owing on an account for electricity supplied to him. In his judgment, the magistrate said that in May, 1934, plaintiff installed in defendant’s premises a shilling-in-the-slot electricity meter and he signed an agreement whereby he agreed to take supply and pay for it at the rates from time to time fixed by the council. Defendant said he was given to under- ■ stand when the meter wtrs installed that one shilling placed in it paid for one unit and no additional charge would be made—'that was to say, his liability ended on placing ic shilling in the slot. That position appeared to have been accepted by the council’s officers from May until December, 1934, when someone discovered that the charge of a shilling a unit was not in accordance with the council’s resolution which fixed the charges at <Hd. at unit, with a minimum of 2/3 a month. Accounts from January, 1935, onward showed that a minimum of 2/3 a month was charged defendant with the exception of February, 1935, when only three units at 6}d. were charged, and the council had credited defendant with the .shillings placed in the meter. When it came to the knowledge of defendant that the minimum charge was 2/3 a month he repudiated Die position and refused to pay. After some months of refusal his current was cut off. The council relied on the contract signed by defendant on May 31, 1934, as the agreement to pay rates fixed by the council. “The method of charging” line was left blank. The magistrate said he was satisfied that defendant was given to understand • that a shilling in the slot ended his liability and that clearly appeared to have been understood by tnc officers of the council for some months. No sub sequent agreement was entered into. Defendant was therefore entitled to judgment.