SCAFFOLDING REGULATIONS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 141, 23 September 1910, Page 7

SCAFFOLDING REGULATIONS.

A NEW PLYMOUTH (PROSECUTION.

At the Magistrate's Court yesterday morniiiijj, before Mr. H. S. Fitzherbert, S.M., hurry Gilboy appeared in answer to a charge of breach of the regulations under the Scaffolding Inspection Act, in chat he had erected a scaffolding in Dawson street, New Plymouth, of a height. exceeding sixteen feet, without giving notice to the inspector of his intention to do so. Mr. R. A. Bolland, inspector under the Act, conducted the prosecution, and Mr, G. Grey appeared for the defendant. The Magistrate pointed, out that the information was bad. It disclosed mo offence, for it did mot set out that the scaffolding was above the height mentioned in the Act. Mr. Grey said he had intended to raise the objection, but would not object to an amendment of the information, for he had no desire to harass or inconvenience the inspector by taking the adjournment that he would now be entitled to. Mr. Bolland said the error was the result of an oversight by the typist The Bench: Yes, but these oversights are apt to prove expensive. It is always advisable to employ a solicitor to draft these informations, for laymen so frequently make mistakes in them. Mr. Grey is entitled to an adjournment, and to: his costs for the day. The .information was then amended, and the inspector was sworn. , The S.M. then drew attention to the fact that the name of the informant, Richard Alfred Bolland, was not set out in the information, which would have to be again amended. The witness said that informations in

this form had been accepted in other J places, and that this was quite the ordinary style, even in police cases. I The. Magistrate, said he had never known Sergt. Haddrell to do it, and he would not accept the information in this form. J

Oh, our department always does it this way. The Bench: Well, you tell your depart ment that it is bad, and they must not do it again. The inspector then proved his case, stating that in August last he visitea a building in course of erection in Daiwson street. There was a scaffolding 21 feet in, height, and men working oai.it. The scaffolding was not in confotamity with the regulations. He asked for the [man ia charge, and Gilboy came. The latter said he was. not the contractor,, but was responsible for the whole work. He knew nothing of the regffil&tkxas. The inspeptor measured the height of the scaffold himself, in the presence of Mr. H. Willis.

, To, Mr. Grey: His office was in Wellington. The Scaffolding Act was certainly not more honoured in the breach than the observance. Most builders gave notice of intention to erect.scaffoldg. Such notice' could be served' on Hie local inspector, under the Deparjanent. . When he visited 1 the building, the carpenters had almost finished with the scaffolding, and the painters., were on it. Verbal notice to Mr. Wijiis, of the Labour Department, wou'ld not suffice., Local builders had been notified that notices could be delivered at the Labour office, but he could not say that Gilboy had been so notified.

Harry Willis, inspector of factories in New Plymouth, gave evidence of having accompanied the inspector to the; building in Dawson street, but did not ■ see the scaffolding measured. j Cross-examined: Gilboy was a new arrival from Home, and not at all ( familiar with the regulations. Mr. Grey, addressing the Court, said the evidence was not conclusive about the height of the scaffolding, or even ( that it was measured at all. The prac-j tical working of the Act presented extra-! ordinary difficulties, for in the first j place, the builder had to address his notice to an office in Wellington. What: useful purpose this notice could serve' was difficult to understand, for the in-! spector was frequently away from Wei- j Hngton. One wou'.d have thought that the object of the law was to have any, such scaffolding and the method of it* erection , inspected by some competent person. This, however, waa_ not the inspector's view, for he said it sufficed that the builder should send this notipe.

His Worship said the sworn evidence as to the height of the scaffolding had been uncontradicted, and must be taken as conclusive. Ignorance of the law was no excuse. But under the circumstances he would inflict only the nominal penalty of one shilling, with costs. Mr. Bolland. acting on the instructions of his department, applied for payment of his expenses. The Magistrate declined to establish this precedent, which he pointed out would be a very dangerous one. The inspector was a public officer, paid for every day, and he had no more right to demand expenses than a policeman had.