SHILLING IN SLOT

Grey River Argus, 6 August 1937, Page 11

SHILLING IN SLOT

Electricity Meters CONSUMER’S LIABILITY DEFINED. [Per Press Association] INVERCARGILL, August 5. Decision in a case which is described as being one of importance to city corporations and electricity consumers throughout New Zealand, was given to-day by Mr W. H. Freeman, S.M. The plaintiff was the Invercargill City Council, which proceeded against Thomas Verdon Mahoney, on a claim for £1 4s, an alleged balance owing on an account for electricity supplied to him. In his judgment, the Magistrate said that, in May, 1934, the plaintiff installed in the 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 rates from time to time fixed by the Council. Defendant said that he was given to understand when the meter was installed that one shilling placed in it paid for one unit, and that no additional charge would be made. That was to say, his liability ended on the placing of the shilling in the slot. That position appeared to have been accepted by the Council’s officers from Maj' until December, 1934, when someone discovered that the charge of one shilling per unit was not in accordance with the Council’s resolution, which fixed the charges at Gid per unit, with-, a minimum of 2s 3d per month. Accounts from January, 1935, onward showed that a minimum of 2s 3d per month was charged tjie defendant, with the exception of February, 1935, when only three units at Gid were charged, and the Council had credited the defendant with the shillings placed in the meter. When it came to the knowledge of the defendant that the minimum charge was 2s 3d per month, he repudiated the position, and refused to pay. After some months of refusal, his current was cut off. The Council relied on the contract signed by the defendant on May 31, 1934, as the agreement to pay rates fixed by the Council. The “method of charging” was left blank. The Magistrate said that he was satisfied that the defendant was given to understand that the shilling in the slot ended his liability, and that clearly appeared to have been understood by the officers of the Council for some months. No subsequent agreement was entered into. The defendant, therefore, was entitled to judgment.