DENTIST'S WORK.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18462, 17 August 1925, Page 5

DENTIST'S WORK.

MAN WHO USED lODINE. FINED £5 FOB DOING IT. "I am not goiug to mince words with regard to the Dental Board, your W orsliip," said Mr H. H. Cornisli, when asking Mr C. R. Orr- to diniiss a case in tho Wellington Magistrate's Court. ' They have dono their best to give a cruel hard blow to my client, and under tho circumstances I am quite justified in saying so." The case was one in which tho New Zealand Dental Board proceeded against Ernest Boock, who they alleged was carrying on dentistry without being a fully qualified practitioner. Mr I). S. Smith, who appeared for the informants, said that Boock was employed at the Dental Institute m Courtenay Place. A plate outside the premises announced that a Mr J. H. Fountain, dentist, late of Chnstchurcli, could be seen inside. According to the rules laid down by the Dental Board no one who was not fully qualified was allowed to give' dental advice or do anything that should be the work of the profession. Boock, although qualified some years ago, ™s » ot ow b ™ th« register, as a new Act had oeen brought in. The defendant had sat for an examination, but failed to pass. He had however, given advice to aMi Singer, and also attended to lus mouth. By "so doing Boock had acted as a denMr Cornish told the Magistrate that Singer was a personal friend of Ho had 17 teeth extracted, but Mr Fountain had performed tho operation. Some davs later Singer went to the Dental Institute. Ho asked to see his friend, and when Boock appeared binMr told him that his jaws were very sore. Boock painted the S um ®', 'r* iodine, and also told Singer that ho could not have an impression taken 1 about two months, as the gums were too soft. TTiat was all Boock was alleged to have done. Singer was a friend, and no payment had been made. Therefore he did not really practise. "Acted as a Dsntist." K. C. Morpeth, a Doctor of Dentistry, called in support of the Board, said that by naintmg a person s gums with iodine, Boock had acted as a dentist. Mr Cornish: Do you mean to tell me that because a, man paints % person s gum to relieve suffering he is liable to be prosecuted under the Act? ■Witness: Yes. He is not supposed to give advice. Only in the case of a doctor or dentist not being handy is a man allowed to render aid. Mr Cornish contended that there was no charge to answer, Boock hivd merely given assistance to a friend m distress. Ho was not posing as a dentist. He had all his money invested in tho Dental Institute, but did no surgical work himself. The Magistrate said that he thought from the evidence that defendant did some work in connexion with dentistry. He had been seen on the premises, and a nurse had gone to get him when Singer appeared. Mr Cornish: He was tlicTe, Your Worship, because he was doing his best to sell out. He was simply nursing the business. Mr Orr-TValker said he waa satisfied that Boock had come under the Act. Ho had no right to attend to people, as be was not qualified. Defendant was fined £5 ; with I7s costs. Counsel's fees were not applied for.