POWER BOARD RATES

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17527, 23 July 1931, Page 9

POWER BOARD RATES

FARMER’S LIABILITY AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT (Per Press Association.) BLKNHEIM, last, night. .Whether the Marlborough Power Board, after declining to supply a ratepayer with electricity without a guarantee that he will lake a minimum quantity ot‘ £3O worth of current for u period of Jive years, can turn round and impose an availability rate on such .a ratepayer, was a question put to the Supreme Court in an action in which Russell Trcgenning, -of -Scarborough, Seddon, asked for an injunction restraining tho Power Board from proceeding against him for the recovery of an alleged availability rate.

His Honor said that the case was of great, interest, as it would have effect all over New Zealand- Ife remarked that it was , oppressive for a small man, but the-law had, to bo administered. At first.sight the ease presented some,' difficulties, but ,it had been well argued, and he, had been able to come to a conclusion. He proceeded to review the fact's, and stated that plaintiff claimod" that ho was not liable for the availability rate (1) because the energy was. not available to him at- the itsual tariff; and (2) because he claimed to have made a separate contract in 1927 for the supply of energy at a minimum of £ls per annum, as compared with £3O por annum now-demanded as. a'guarantee by the board. • • The facts shortly, said His Honor, were that the -land where plaintiff resided was not in the board’s early years contiguous to the transmission lines, so that anything done in the way of collecting guarantees was purely tentative. In December, .1926, plaintiff 'made an offer to the board to pay a minimum of £ls per annum for live years. He claimed that this amounted to a contract by him to take, and by the board to supply, elec.tricitv when it became availablo at his property at £ls per annum. His Honor was satisfied, however, that that was not the legal meaning of the documents. They wore merely applications, and had not been accepted'by the board." On the contrary they were definitely declined, and plaintiff was notified that lie could not' secure’ a. supply of electricity unless he entered into, the same guarantee as his neighbors, which was £3O per. annum. ( There was. no doubt that’ energy was available to plaintiff.if be wero prepared to-pay.for it at the rates set out by the board. He had refused-to do so, and it seemed to His'Honor that the-board would be'travelling outside its statutory authority if it supplied plaintiff on better terms than his neighbors. His Honor found' that energy was available to plaintiff and that the claim to a separate contract could not be maintained- In these circumstances, there could be no legal or technical defence to the rate imposed by tli o -board. - , • The motion for an injunction would be dismissed with costs £ls Uss and disbursements.