NOT REGISTERED.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18365, 24 April 1925, Page 9

NOT REGISTERED.

+ ! ACTION BY DENTAL ASSOCIATION. (incut, TO "TM IIW") AUCKLAND, April 23. A prosecution for a breach of the Dentists Act was brought against A. J. Conway, dental mechanic, Karangahape road (Mr Hall Skelton), by the New Zealand Dental Association (Mr R. W. Moody), in the Magistrate's Court before Mr J. W. Poynton, S.M. Conway was charged with holding himself out as prepared to practise dentistry while not being :l registered dentist. Counsel intimated that defendant admitted being unregistered. Maurice £. Dcnuiston. dentist, Welington, and a member of tie New Zealand Dental Association, said that he visited Conway's premises on April 9th. "lien Conway appeared, witness said. Are you the dentist!" and received an answer in the affirmative. "Witness tben said, "What can vou do for this tooth of mine?" Conwav said it could not be crowned or filled and an extraction was the only thing. Aftor inspecting another tooth, Conway said it could not be crowned, as it did not project far enough from the gum. Witness considered this was wrong. He then told defendant he "funked" an extraction and left the rooms. A sign on Conway's window bore the inscription, "Painless Extractions." Mr Skelton: There has been a great deal of collision between your Association and unregistered dentists*—Yes. Mr Skclton: Was not the examination set for these unregistered mcii a deliberate trap?—No, there is no malice. Mr Skelton submitted several extracts from the examination paper, which ne described as ridiculous and "utterly foreign to the requirements of the profession." Among the test questions objected to were, "Why will a horse grow fat by eating green grass?" "Howmuch water is there in a pound of meat!" and "If two pups arc reared on humanised milk and two in a natural way, what will be the difference in the pups?" Mr Poynton: If there are men who have suffered hardship, the proper remedy is to make representations to Parliament.

Mr Moody said that Conway was fined £5 for a breach of the Act in 1919. He had been practising in the same, manner as a qualified dentist. Mr Skelton said that Conway did a considerable amount of work for other members of the profession, A fine of £lO was imposed.