NOT REGISTERED

Hokitika Guardian, 18 August 1925, Page 1

NOT REGISTERED

—O I’UACTIsINO AS DENTIST. WK1.1.1 NGTQN, August 1?. A iomewliaL unusual ease, was heard iit the Magistrate's Court yesterday before Mr C. 1!. Orr-Walker. S.M. Ernest Bopelt, the proprietor of a di'Utist rv establishment known as the “Dentai Institute’’ at Courtenay Place, was charged with having practised dentistry without being licensed, thereby committing a breach of file Dentists Amendment Ac i . likß. Jl was explained that Booek ban been engaged in dental work prior to the Act, and lie was entitled to carry on until March KUh.. IH:M. Any dental opera lion eciidueted hv him or amici* connected with dentistry after • that date would be illegal. The Dental Association had been endeavouring to quell such practice, and saw lit id lay the information against Booek. Air Smith appeared on behalf of the association, and Air 11. 1!. Cornish lor accused. Henry Singer stated that lie had had Seventeen teeth removed at i lit: institute. Mr Fountain, licensed demist in the institute, performing the operation. On July “S.lth. he called again and knowing Mr Booek personally asked for him. Booek subsequently applied iodine to the witnesses's gums, and in answer to the latter s question as to when lie could receive a sitting for false teeth stated that it would be two months before any impression could he taken. Accused had never extracted any of witness’s teeth, and ns far as the witness knew had novel performed any dental operation. An expert. Dr Morpeth was railed, am! when questioned hv Air Smith as to whether the act of putting iodine on the gums was a licensed dentist's work "replied in the affirmative. Boock’s name was not in the ‘‘New Zealand Gazette’’ as a dental practitioner. Air Cornish submitted that there was no ease to answer as he considered the evidence ambiguous. The act of putting iodine on the gums was what a father did to his child. . Defendant gave friendly aid and advice. His "Worship was of the opinion that there was a case to answer, and imposed a fine of £5 with 17s costs, on the charge of unlawfully practising dentistry.