A NEAT SUBTERFUGE?
BREACH OF ACT ALLEGED. By Telegraph.—press Association, Whangarei, February 7. In the Magistrate's Court to-day, Hugh Scally was charged that on or about January 25, not n-.ing a registered veterinary surgeon, ne did use the description, “Veterinary and Stock Specialist.’’ in connection with bis callin in a manner that might reasonably cause any person to believe that he was a registered veterinary surgeon. Defendant pleaded not guilty. After hearing evidence, the Magistrate referred to an advertisement mentioned which read, H. Scally, representing Ring’s Proprietary veterinary practitioners,” and asked the detective how (he charge could succeed, as it was (he proprietary and not the defendant which was represented as veterinary practitioners. ( As far as Scalier was concerned. it might, of course, be a neat subterfuge to overcome the provisions of the Statute, but the defendant was undoubtedly not holding himself out as a vetcr'narv practitioner. Decision was reserved.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19280208.2.117
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 111, 8 February 1928, Page 13
Word count
Tapeke kupu
150A NEAT SUBTERFUGE? Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 111, 8 February 1928, Page 13
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in