TAMPERING WITH A METER.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XII, Issue 244, 28 September 1922, Page 7

TAMPERING WITH A METER.

A CONSUMER'S MISTAKE COSTS HIM FOUR POUNDS. At the Hustings Court-house on Wednesday before Mr It. W. Dyer, S.M., It. Wilson, Karanuiu road, was charged on I lie information of the Borough Electrical Engineer, that, without pcrinissiou, he broke the seal affixed to the meter for recording the consumption of electric current supplied by the Hastings Borough < ouneil to premises on Karatnu road, owned by Mr T. Styles, and leased by defendant. Mr 1-i. H. Williams, who appeared for tin Borough Council, said the inform:’ tion was laid under the by laws and the maximum penalty for the offence was £2O. The offence was serious, and in ease of conviction he would have to press for a substantial penalty. Up to lately the meters iti the borough had not been sealed, but now they were being sealed, because the authorities had good reason to believe that they had been losing revenue by not having done so in the past. He understood the defence set up was that the wires of the, meter had worked loose, out that was improbable, because they were fastened with two screws and the meter had been examined the previous day. On a previous occasion, the borough official had found difendant engager, in screwing the lid off the meter, which showed that he took an interest in it. Defendant said that he had opened the meter to see what was wrong, because he saw a flash, but whether that was true or not, it was not his business to interfere with it. Only the borough officials Were entitled to do that. it would also be said that he had rung up the Borough Council to send some one to attend to the meter ,and as no one came, he took the matter into his own hands, which he had no right to do. This matter of breaking the meter seals must be put a stop to, as it was a serious thing for the borough. Mr W. McLean, for the defence, pointed out that the effect of the meter not being scaled did not mean that the consumer would receive free current. The reason for sealing was that, any attempt to manipulate the current would be disclosed by the breakage of the seal, but the mere sealing only gave an assurance that the current had not been tampered with. Defendant had been leasing the premises from Mr Styles since July Sth, and on August 2nd a borough official sealed the meter.- On August 3rd, defendant had an urgent job, requiring the use of the electric motor. The meter was not properly fixcd .and it was hanging askew, so ho went to put it straight. He found one of the wires out... He rung up the council at 9.30 a.tn., and at noon no one had come to attend to the damage su, the work in hand, was urgent.} he broke the seal and hied the wire. At 2 o’clock a borough official came and defendant told him what he had done, and the officeial replied that he would have to report. Mr Scott, Borouh Electrical Engineer, came at 4 p.m. and told defendant that he had done wrong. He examined the meter and he found it going regularly. There was no intent whatsoever to defraud. The more breaking of the seal would not give him free current, but . the current evidently could be manipulated by some other means and that was why the meters were sealed. It was not denied that defendant informed the council, and his actions throughout had been quite open. It would be different if the council officials had called at the premises and discovered the broken seal for themselves. This was the first case of its kind in Hastings, and it was only now the council were putting the seals on meters. His Worship said that if defendant had tampered with the seal without informing the council the offence would have been very serious, hut he evidently got impatient when an official did not come and he broke the seal, which was wrong of him to do. He evidently did not try to work a point on the council, or to get the current without paying for it. lint it was not a ease for u nominal penalty because he (His Worship) did not want people to think that they could do such a thing with impunity.. He would fine defendant £3 and costs 7s,.solicitor’s fee £1 Is-