SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY

Evening Star, Issue 21219, 28 September 1932, Page 10

SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY

POWER BOARD S APPEAL WELLINGTON, September 27. The Court of Appeal is considering an appeal by the Taranaki Electric Power Board from the judgment of Mr Justice MacGregor in an action brought hy the appellant board against the New Plymouth Borough Council for an interpretation of section 282 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1920. The section requiring interpretation states : “A council having established electric light works for the purpose of lighting streets and public places of a borough and of supplying electricity to inhabitants of a borough may contract with the local authority of any adjoining district to supply electricity to such local authority upon such terms as may be mutually agreed upon.” The trial judge held that the boroughs of Inglewood and Waitara were adjoining districts to the New Plymouth Borough within the meaning of section 282 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1920, and that the supply of electricity by the respondent borough council to the Inglewood and Waitara Boroughs was therefore within the power conferred by that section. The plaintiff power board now appeals from this decision. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the words “ any adjoining district,” used in section 282 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1920, mean any district in actual contact with the boundaries of the New Plymouth Borough. Legal argument was submitted to show that the word “adjoining” means contiguous, or in actual contact with. Counsel for the respondent contended that in interpreting the phrase “any adjoining district” not only’its context, but also the surrounding circumstances of the case, should be taken into consideration. A contract for the supply of current between the respondent council and the Inglewood and Waitara Boroughs had been running for a number of years, and the court, ho submitted, should hesitate before adopting any narrow interpretation which would make the contract void.

After hearing counsel for the appellant in reply the court reserved its decision