COURT’ DECISION.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 296, 12 November 1934, Page 7

COURT’ DECISION.

REFERENCEjTO CONSUMERS’ ASS,RATION. 8 PURCHAsfoF SUPPLIES. Per P'S Association. WIoINGTON, Nov. 12. His Honouvhe Chief Justice, Sir Michael Alyeif delivered judgment to-day in the s'e of the Mayor, Councillors and (izens ‘of Palmerston North and AS. Mansford, plaintiffs, against the anawatu-Oroua Power Board. He :'S the real question in the case as I.views'it is whether the plaintiff citjs entitled to an injunction to restih tlie board from levying, enforchj or collecting the separate rate fnposed on Palmerston North. | ;'t Traversing the agreement, His Honour sayJin effect, that the city was to olin power at the same price as tj board itself paid the Governmeniphis a service charge of £2OO per arter, with certain additions whifhe .need not indicate in detail. T 1 effect was that the city was able | sujiply electricity to the inhabitanlat lower prices than those the boar- charged the consumers within c-er/ portions of its area. The city.ad' its own plant, which was stillUgmred for stand-by purposes, a I its own reticulation, the whole’ ofie cost of which had been borne city. . . ... The ai/itageous. position of the citizens qe rise to dissatisfaction m other jM of the board’s district, the formation of an associaJ called the ManawatuOroua ectricity Consumers’ Associationjormed for the purpose of forcinifie city to abandon the consequerT desired by the Promoters’ Associfpn. An endeavour was made to intje the city , to sell its undertaking tithe board and join in the boardi’sobeme so that the inhabitants! the city -would pay the same priced the country consumers. If ttiatadeavour failed there would be an ort to obtain legislation to achif the result. If that, too, was ■unsjessfiil, then a separate rate was t 0 ...levied on the city. AGREEMENT.” i bijrvtvmrv)' rrnnc An +n cnoo lr AT

ie judgment goes on to speak of tj. subsequent election ticket of the ..{nation's nominees. After the elecin May, 1932, one of the first ipgs the board did was to appoint committee consisting of fen, five of whom had just been |dged to the association’s aims. The |a of constituting an executive comiittee consisting of a majority of the card was quite a new one and the aesult would almost inevitably be that Whatever decisions or recommendations the executive committee made would practically with certainty be confirmed pi- adopted by the board.

The judgment goes on to say that, foiled in the first two aims of purchase and, obtaining legislation, a majority of the board, according to its programme, proceeded with the third. He could not impute to the Legislature the intention to authorise a board, after entering into an honourable commercial agreement, by means of a deliberately self-imposed increase of the estimated deficiency and exercise of rating power to take away the benefits conferred by the agreement because it formed the agreement somewhat unsatisfactory and objectionable to some of its constituents. He holds that the injunction must go to the extent of restraining the board from giving effect to and from enforcing or collecting the separate rate.

At the hearing YD’ J. B. Callan, K.C., of Wellington, with him Mr H. R. Cooper, of Palmerston North, appeared for the City Council, and Mr H. P. Richmond, of Auckland, with him Mr J. P. Innes, of Palmerston North, for the Power Board.