WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4864, 12 August 1925, Page 3

WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE

BREACH OF MACHINERY ACT. LOCAL SAWMILLER MULCTED. At ,the Magistrate's Court, Paeroa, on Monday, before Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M., James Harvey Evans, sawmiller, Paeroa, was charged with an alleged breach of the Machinery Act, 1908, in that he had worked a 16-h.p. portable boiler for which no certificate had been issued by the department. Mr E. A. Porritt appeared for defendant and entered a plea of not guilty. The Inspector of Machinery stated that he had inspected the boiler on December 17, 1924, and had sent notices to defendant on several occasions demanding payment for the certificate but the demands had not been met. The matter was then put in the hands of the police, and Constable McClihchy had visited the mill and found the boiler being used. In reply to Mr Porritt the inspector said that the boiler had been worked under permit from the department prior to the inspection, but that permit lapsed with the inspection. He would press for a heavy penalty, as the certificate, which should be posted near the boiler, showed the pressure at which it could be used and the status of the engineer required to be in charge.

W. Wallace, second-class engineer, employed at the sawmill, stated in reply to the inspector that he had been informed by defendant that the certificate was at a boardinghouse, and the boiler could be used at 651 b pressure. A Postal Department employee stated in evidence that Mr Evans had offered to pay for the certificate in June, but as he did not have the notice with him the mnoey could not be accepted. The certificate was later paid for and lifted on the original demand.

Constable McClinchy deposed that he had interviewed Mr Wallace and had learned that the certificate was supposed to be at the boardinghouse. He was later informed at the post office that the certificate had not been issued. It was issued about half an hour after he had called.

In opening for the defence Mr Porritt said that a certificate had been issued but not uplifted at the time partnient’s office in Wellington, but had not been paid for. There was nothing in the Act setting out when the fees must be paid, the only mention of a date being that on which a rebate might be claimed. He would submit that the certificate had been issued btu not uplifted at the time of the complaint. The certificate was dated January 9 as the date of issue.

Lengthy legal argument was heard, His Worship exprestsing the opinoin that the department was flying in the face of the regulations by granting a permit to use the boiler. Obviously it! was quite all right for the defendant to then use the boiler, although no certificate was available to be exhibited.

The defendant was convicted and fined the nominal sum of £l, together with witnesses expenses and court costs amounting to £3 13s 6d. .