SANITARY PLUMBING LAW

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 6, Issue 309, 11 September 1917, Page 1

SANITARY PLUMBING LAW

Pukekohe Trader Fined. At the Pukekohe Police Court last Thursday, before Mr E. Rawson, S.M., J. Henry Blackwood, plumber, of Pukekohe, was summoned at the instance of the Public Health Department for (1) hiving at Pukekohe, not being a registered plumber within the meaning of the Plumbers' Registration Act, carried out certain sanitary plumbing at Pukekohe, (2) exhibiting his name as a sanitary plumber in a manner calculated to induce the belief that he was a registered plumber, and (3) engaging in the trade of sanitary plumb ingMr Selwyn Mays appeared for the prosecution and Mr H. G. R. Mason defended. The fact that sanitary work had been executed by the defendant was admitted and Mr Mays, in dealing with the second information, contended that as Pukekohe was one of the boroughs gazetted as a district in which the Plumbers' Act was in operation and in which accordingly only a registered plumber could undertake sanitary plumbing the defendant's* action in advertising himself as a sanitary plumber was calculated to induce the belief that he was a registered plumber. Mr Mason, for the defence, stated that prior to the passing of the Plumbers' Registration Act all plumbers were licensed by local authorities. The Act did not cover the whole of the Dominion but only special districts as gazetted. Therefore the defendant was entitled to carry on sanitary plumbing outside the borough, the surrounding country district not having been gazetted. He (Mr Mason) accordingly submitted that defendant was entitled to call himself a sanitary plumber. The defendant, added Mr Mason, had been practising the business all his life and was an able plumber. Owing to trade rivalry when he made application for registration he was turned down by the Plumbers' Board but he now in - tended to again apply. for registra tion, to which he was undoubtedly entitled. Ihe defendant gave evidence in support of Mr Mason's statements and in answer to Mr Mays he admitted that he had previously been fined for a similar offence. The Magistrate remarked that no matter what grievance defendant might have with the Plumbers' Board it was veiy foolish of him to thwart the authorities. The defendant (interjecting!: I have to earn my living. The Magistrate: If you are going to take up that attitude I will fine you the maximum penalty. His Worship proceeded to advise the defendant to be reasonable and then imposed a fine of £3 together with 7s costs and £l Is solicitor's fee on the first inforation and convicted and ordered him to pay 7s costs and £1 18 solicitor's fees on the second information, the third information being withdrawn by Mr Mays.