BORTHWICK’S CASE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIII, Issue 73, 8 March 1933, Page 7

BORTHWICK’S CASE

POWER SUPPLY AGREEMENT ALLEGED BREACH WITH BOARD. SUPREME COURT HEARING. CONTINUES. The case in which the Hawke’s Bay Electric Power Board seeks the recovery of £2803 allegedly due under guarantee by Thomas Borthwick (Australasia;, Limited, was continued this morning before Air Justice Blair in the Supreme Court at Napier. Plaintiff was represented by Mr J. B. Callan. Mr H. F. Johnston, K.C., of

Wellington, and with him Mr J. Macfarlane Laing, of Masterton, and Mr A. C. Jessep, Wellington, appeared for the defendant company. George Robertson Croll, superintendent engineer to the company, agreed that there was no hope of re-establishing the works that season (1931). He said he knew of the minimum annual payment provided in the agreement, but Was not informd by what method Vick•rmau and Lancaster determined it. His •Obstruction was that it took the nature Of a commitment of good faith. In his •pinion Borthwicks did not derive 100 per cent, benefit from the ring feeder system, as they were only a branch on tae ring. Also, Whakatu and Hastings ware larger consumers, and should, therefore, be charged proportionately higher. To Mr Laing: A less expensive installation could have been made at Paki Paki than the one put in by the Power Board, without, he thought, any loss of •fficiency. He added that he did not think the steel towers should have been •reded along the road; the ordinary ironbark poles would have functioned •qually well. Witness quoted instances in the Wairarapa and Canterbury areas where wooden poles were used. He •dded various technical reasons for his assumption that the apparatus was More costly than was essential. He would say that the effect of Borthwicks discontinuing consumption of current from the board’s lines would be simply* • lowering of their peak load, nothing More..

The transformers at the company’s works at Paki Paki were lying on their aide immediately after the earthquake, •nd when he arrived from Australia on February 11. To his knowldge the boar 1 had made no attempt to place the transformers in position or to examine them. The company was obliged to instal a 32-volt self-contained generating unit, otherwise they would have been forced to work in darkness. They needed light, and had power been available it could have been taken through the switchboard, but he was not aware of anv move by the board to repair the equipment, although wires were run to the workshop to operate a lathe and saw. Ho did not think this work was conducted in an efficient manner, and he gave further technical reasons for this View. This supply was given a fortnight or three weeks after the earthquake, and was the first instance of which he was •ware of the board’s attempting to bring power to the works. IRONBARK v. STEEL. To Mr Callan: He was not a member of the Institute of Electrical Engineers, •nd he had no experience in the reticulation of outside areas. In relation to the ring feeder system he would agree it aimed at securing continuity Of supply, but it was more expensive to construct than the parallel method of supply. Reverting to the ironbark poles used on the Lake Coleridge system in 1915, upon which he based his earlier view that steel towers were unnecessary at Paki Paki, witness admitted that he did not know how many of those poles at Coleridge had been replaced. He admitted, too, that steel towers, though more costly, were more •atisfactory from the viewpoint of the electrical engineer. Nor would bo contradict the opinion of the board’s engineer that power could have been made available in two days after the ’quake. After some further cross-examination witness agreed with Mr Callan that the withdrawal of the company from the board's lines did not affect the board’s peak load, since this occurred at 6 o'clock at night when the maximum demand caused by the domestic load pocurred.