I know it dodges the dilemma, but the neighbour didn't pay for the light. He paid for the oil. So it's questionable what was stolen and where. The light seems

I know it dodges the dilemma, but the neighbour didn't pay for the light. He paid for the oil. So it's questionable what was stolen and where. The light seems to have left the property of the neighbour. You may even call it light pollution, because of its environmental impact, which may be of greater importance in the long run. https://www.darksky.org/light-pollution/wildlife/ https://www.darksky.org/light-pollution/wildlife/ Imagine the reader has a bee hive, that is disturbed by the light and reduces its honey production. But since the reader approved and even used the situation to its own advantage, he also could be considered responsible. So in the best of all possible worlds both should be charged with minor misdemeanor. And punished accordingly with a semester of Kantian moral philosophy, held in a Platonic cave without lighting.