View report page

479
publicly and formally challenged, the Company acted in a
way which the Water Conference feels bound to make
public.
What took place when the right to make this
charge was denied, and payment refused ?
On the 4th April, 1891, Mr. John George Hilton
(acting under the advice of Mr. A. E. Dobbs, and enclosing
a letter from him), tendered the maximum amount which
could be claimed for his dwelling house for domestic supply,
as payment in full of all water rate legally due. He refused
payment of the bath charge at the same time, but undertook
to pay that or any other lawful charge, provided the
authority to make the charge was shown. In reply a
"formal receipt on account of water rent due" was received
on the 7th April without further remark. There is good
reason to hold that, under the statute, a tender entitling to
supply made as payment in full cannot properly be accepted
as part payment. The proper course on the part of the
W ater Company is to refuse to accept the money, and
either to serve notice of legal proceedings, or else if they
are perfectly confident as to their right, to serve notice of
"cutting off" on a given date, leaving the legal proceedings
to be taken by the party disputing the charge.
The fact that payment in full had been made, and a
receipt had been given without attempt to show reason or
authority under the statute, was at once published in the
newspapers, and elicited a letter from Mr. Louttit, the
Secretary and General Manager of the Company, the
material part of which letter is the concluding statement,
"That the Company is fully justified in making the claim to
which" Mr. Dobbs "refers, and will duly maintain its rights
before a proper tribunal."