ELECTRICAL WIRING

Wairarapa Times-Age, 1 May 1942, Page 2

ELECTRICAL WIRING

NEED FOR KEEPING REGISTER.

CASE BEFORE FEATHERSTON

COURT.

The necessity for persons doing electrical wiring to keep a register was brought under notice at the Featherston Magistrate’s Court on Wednesday. Thomas Gilchrist Hardie, of Featherston, was charged by the Registrar of the Electrical Wiremen’s Registration Board that in March, 1941, being _ a person undertaking certain work involving electrical wiring in connection with the assembling of electrical apparatus on premises other than the premises in which such electrical apparatus was intended to be used and not being himself a registered electrical wire-man or the holder of a provisional licence and not having in 'his service a full time employee so qualified did fail to provide a register as required by section 4, sub-section 3 of the Electrical Wiremen’s Registration Amendment Act, 1928, as amended by the Act of 1924. Mr R. R. Burridge, Masterton, Crown Prosecutor, appeared for' the informant and Mr H. L. Lawson for defend- ’ ant, who pleaded not . guilty. ' The facts, which were admitted, showed that defendant had undertaken electrical wiring work for a period of several years and that though the Power Board inspector was in premises immediately opposite defendarN’s and actually inspected all work done') by defendant, the register in which the inspector was required to enter in ink particulars of the work done by defendant was not provided by the defendant. "In the course of his evidence, the inspector said the defendant had performed his work most conscientiously and there was never any complaint about the class of his work. Witness acknowledged that he had never asked for a register. For defendant, it was contended that the onus was on the inspector to demand a register and that no offence could bo committed until defendant had refused to satisfy the inspector’s demand. Counsel stated that defendant was not only doing electrical wiring but he was conducting a stationery business and always had at hand a stock of note books which could have been used as a register as the Act did not specify any particular form of register. The Magistrate, Mr H. P. Lawry, held that in view of the inspector' never having asked for a register a technical offence had been committed and he would not impose a penalty. Defendant was convicted and ordered to pay court costs 10s and solicitor’s fee £3 3s.