ELECTRIC POWER

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23163, 8 October 1938, Page 22

ELECTRIC POWER

CASE AGAINST COMPANY j A DAY OF ARGUMENT CONTENTIONS BY COUNSEL The action brought by the AttorneyGeneral for tlio North Auckland Elec-tric-power Board seeking a declaration and an injunction against Wilsons (New Zealand) Portland Cement, Limited, •was continued before Mr. Justice Fair in tlio Supreme Court yesterday. The board sought a declaration that it was .unlawful for tlio cement company to distribute beyond the limits of its own property, and particularly to the boroiigh of Wliangarei, electricity generated by its steam-driven plant at Portland, and also an injunction restraining the company from using Buch electricity except for its own consumption. The board was represented by Mr. North and Mr. Astley and the cement company' .by Mr. Rogerson and Mr. Terry. The company, denied that it was supplying electricity in any illegal way or infringing any right. Three Principles Stated T

At the close of his address Mr. Rogerson submitted that, from the authorities he hatl (Quoted three, principles emerged.The relator—in this case the AttorneyGeneral—must have suffered some wrong of which he had a legal right to complain. The Attorney-General was entitled to intervene successfully only where a public interest was involved as distinct from a sectional interest. Even if this was a case where the AttorneyGeneral was entitled to intervene on the ground of some public interest, Mr. Rogerson said, the surrounding circumstances were such that he would not be entitled to any order. 1 Mr, North" said the North Auckland Electric-power Board' was a local body set up under the provisions of the Electric Power Boards Act, 1925, and its v members were appointed by all the ratepayers within the district.. It was in every sense a iocal authority and made no profits. The whole future of the electric service given, to* the, people depended on the progress of the-. board, which would be interfered with if excessive powers were given to a private company. The Attorney-General was responsible for seeing that such powers were not exceeded. Public or Private Business

The power. board was not there for any private gain whatever, Mr. North said. Obviously it was doing nothing improper, if in the interests of citizens it asked the Attorney-General to exercise his rights to restrain a company which was there simply for private gain. The cement tompany for over 20 years had merely run its hydro-electric works for the purposes of its own business. If the cement company went outside its licence, as Mr. North submitted it had done, it should be restrained, and the public benefit was deemed to be advanced by such., restraint. The only real isshe in the case was whether the defendant company , had exceeded the power of its licence. Mr. North did not conclude his argument, and the Court adjourned until Monday.