HEATING APPLIANCES.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16257, 6 July 1918, Page 4

HEATING APPLIANCES.

INTERESTING APPEAL CASE

The caso in which the Direct Importing Company (Mr Alpers) appeals against the requisition of' tho Inspector of Factories (Mr Raymond, K.C.), calling. on tho company to make certain alterations in connexion with the gas heating stores on its premises,, was resumed yesterday afternoon before Mr T. A. W. Bailey, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court.

O. C. Cox, mauagor of tho D.1.C., gave particulars regarding the air spaco in the building, showing it to be in excess of tho statutory requirements. Regarding absences ot employees from all causes, between March Ist and June 28th, he stated that out of a total of 14,7 employees there had .been 102 ab: sences in 9(5 day 6: he considered this an excellent average, especially for winter months.

Mr Raymond's cross-examination was chiefly. directed to show that the company provided better conditions in the portion of the premises frequented by customers than in those parts devoted tp the employees. ' A. A. Bickerton, Government Analyst in Canterbury, gave evidence at considerable length respecting tests mado by him in June and July last year respecting the purity of the air on tho ground floor of tne D.I.C. Witness was cross-examined by Mr Raymond a3 to tho sulphur content of Christchurch English, M.I.M.E. M.G.E., F.C.S., gas engineer to tho Chrisfcehurcli Gas Company, gave evidence, amongst other points, on the abolition of the English standard of tho sulphur content of gas, and stated that between December last and May last the rango of si4j)hur in the gas-produced by the Christchurch Gas Company was from -25 grains per 100 cubic feet to 63 grains per 100 cubic feet.

I Mr Raymond's cross-examinntionwns directed chiefly to show that methods existed for the elimination of the sulphur oontcnt in gas. It. C. Bishop, general manager of the ■ Christchurch Gas Company, produced a letter purporting to be signed by J. ! P. Frengley, at present Acting-Chief , Health OiScer of tho Dominjo'n. it was I written to the Gas Association.

Mr Raymond submitted that a written statement dealing with the matter before the' Court (unless produced by the writer) was not evidence. In addition, Dr. Frengley was in town. Mr Alpers said lie would havo considered it courteous if counsel or Dr. Chesson bad informed him of that fact.

Mr Raymond said he was acting in the case for the Labour Department. He argued that tho letter (which dealt with the proposed regulations fixing a standard of atmospheric purity) was outsirlo the scope of the present enquiry, which was instituted under tho Shops and Offices Act.

His Worship did not consider the letter admissible.

Alpers said ho Intended asking that it should be admitted as.tho evidence of an expert. His Worship expressed the opinion that from the evidence before him ho was inclined to the opinion that the D.I.C. heating appliances were reasonablv safe.

Mr Alners raised tho point of the unreasonableness of the requisition in view of the proposed regulations. His friend's objection to. tho admission of tho letter confirmed him in tho belief that' the case was really Chosson v. Prengley! Dr. Chesson: It is not!

Mr Raymond said he had authority to give an emphatic denial to s"r Alpers's statement. There was absolute accord and harmony between Dr. Frengiey and X>r. Chesson.

Mr Bishop remarked that when he attended the gas conference Dr. Frengiey had referred to Dr. Chesson as "his valued colleague." Mr Alpers said ho did not suggest that there was personal disharmony between the two gentlemen, but scientific disharmony. Counsel j intimated that his case" was closed.

Replying to his Worship, Mr Raymond said lie desired a little time before opening for respondent. As his Worship will be out of town till Friday next, and probaoly longer, the further hearing was adjourned to some day tho week after nest.