A LAYMAN PLUMBER

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 311, 28 June 1912, Page 4

A LAYMAN PLUMBER

THE EIGHTS OF CITIZENS. A BY-LAW INTERPRETED. A case in which the presiding magistrate (Mr. A. Crooke, 5..M.) exercised his discretionary powers, occupied the attention of the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning. Paul 11. F. Zastrovv, for whom Mr. A. R. Standish appeared, was charged with having unlawfully connecting a pipe with the borough watermain. According to counsel, a water pipe in one of three cottages, all eon- _ nected with the same main, and owned' by a New Plymouth landlord, broke on the Thursday before the King's Birthday. The owner notified the municipal authorities to cut off the water temporarily, at the same time sending word to two different plumbers to come and effect repairs. Sunday came, but no plumbers had yet put in an appearance, and so on the Monday, to save further inconvenience, the landlord, through one of' his tenants asked the defendant, who though not licensed knew something about plumbing, to do the job. Zastrow acquiesced, and repaired th# pipe. He did the work just as a friendly action, and received no payment for his services. Subsequently the Borough Council became possessed of the facts, and the prosecution was instituted.

In sympathising with the defendant's position, the Magistrate remarked that he did not think the Act was intended to apply to such cases as that under review. It was not as if a fresh pip# had unlawfully been connected with tilt, main. It appeared to him that if the tenant did not repair a break he was liable for waste, and if he did effect repairs without giving two days' notice he was liable under another section of the Act. There could not be any suggestion of a desire on the part of the defendant to conceal his handiwork from the borough.

For the prosecution, Inspector Tipping asserted that the requisite notice had not heen given to the Council. Only a lieensed plumber, or one of his men, could perform the work. The borough must protect plumbers against laymen. The Magistrate: These proceedings are instituted to protect plumbers?— Yes. Mr. Crooke: Then why don't plumbers come when they are asked? They wer« asked to come, but they would not!

The inspector replied that the plumbers were afraid they might not be paid readily enough. The Magistrate rejoined: It seem# to me that this Act more contemplates th« action of a man connecting a fresh pipe. Under the circumstances the defendant had no interest at all in the job, receiving nothing for it. He did not act as a licensed plumber. I will accordingly dismiss the action on the grounds of triviality.