DOMINION NEWS.

Hokitika Guardian, 9 February 1928, Page 1

DOMINION NEWS.

(By Telegraph—Per Press Association,

HORSE TRAINER. CHARGED

WELLINGTON, Feb. 8. The trial of Albert Goodman a horse-trainer of Trentham on a charge of negligently driving a motor car, so as to cause bodily injuries to Percy John Aldridge, and Norman Parata, began in the Supreme Court to-day. The Chief Justice (Sir Charles Skerrett) was on the Bench. Air I‘. S. K. Afneassey (Crown prosecutor) conducted the ease for the Crown, while accused was represented by Air H. F. O’Leary.

The ease as outlined by Air Alaeassey was that on September 17. 192 i, between Upper Flutt and Trentham, accused was driving a motor ear which collided with a motor cycle ridden by Aldridge with Parata on tlio pillion. Both tTie latter had their right legs broken, Aldridge having to have his leg anuiptated. Parata was still in the hospital. Mr Alaeassey described the motor cycle at proceeding on its correct side of the'road, at a reasonable rate of 20 and 25 miles while it was alleged that Goodman was travelling at an excessive speed and that he swerved to the right, oil the IS foot wide bitumen track. to pas.- a motor ear in Iront driven h\ Wilson Hazelwood, and collided with the motor cycle. Evidence as to speed was called, the estimates varying from <ls miles to 00 miles per hour. Evidence was also given ol accused’s sobriety at the time of the collision. Tlic* easewill he continued to-morrow for the defence.

UXR EG ESTER ED DENTIST. WELLINGTON, Feb. 8. In a- reserved judgment to-day Air Page, S.M.. convicted Samuel At. C'olien, proprietor of the Rapid Dental Repair Service, on a charge of practising dentistry without being registered. Defendant who was a registered dentist in the Old Country came to New Zealand in 1923, said Air Page, but had not succeeded in passing the exams to enable him to he registered here. The Act provided that the practice of dentistry shall he deemed to include the performance of any operation and giving of any treatment, advice or attendance, usually performed by dentists. Tn his view, making or mere repairing of artificial teeth, umissoeiated with any attendance with the patient, would not come within the meaning of the Act. r I he Act was not directed at mechanical or technical work of repairing artificial teeth, hut at the performance of operation or giving of advice, treatment or attendance. In the present case, defendant examined a patient’s mouth, took two impressions. and having repaired the teeth, fitted them in. Defendant was fined 80. later fixed at £5 Is, to permit an appeal. Security was fixed at £lO 10s.