WONG USE OF TITLE “DOCTOR”

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 1, 26 September 1939, Page 12

WONG USE OF TITLE “DOCTOR”

Principal Of Engineering’ | School MAGISTRATE IMPOSES FINE OF £2 By Telegraph—Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH. Sept. 25. The right of the principal of a private engineering school to use the title “Dr.” and the initials “M.E.” _ and “M.M.” after his name was questioned in the Magistrates' Court. Defendant was Elmore William Bender, of the Polytechnic School of Engineering, who was charged that he “publicly used In connexion with his trade or calling certain initials and abbreviations of words intended, and likely, to cause any person to believe, contrary to fact, that he held a degree, diploma or certificate issued by a university or other institution, society 7 or association.” The magistrate, Mr. E. C. Levvey, S.M., held that the use of the title “Dr.” infringed the statute and fined defendant £2, with costs. Detective-Sergeant F. Sinclair prosecuted. He explained that for several years defendant had conducted his school of engineering under the name of Dr. Bender. The title and qualifications implied by the letters after the name no doubt went a long way toward inducing pupils to enrol. Police had made inquiries, and Bender claimed that the initials signified “mining engineer" and “master mechanic,” and that certificates "from the Pittsburgh Technical Institute entitled him to call himself “doctor.” Detective J. J. Halcrow gave evidence concerning interviews with defendant. who allowed the police to photograph a diploma purporting to have been issued to him in 1909 by the Technical Institute of Pittsburgh. There were photographs on the wall of defendant’s place of business of other certificates, but Bender said that his papers had been lost in the wreck of the Oceanic off the cost of Scotland in 1913. Witness later produced to defendant an enlarged photograph of the signatures and date on the diploma and asked defendant if he had interfered with them. Bender said that the dip-, loma was sent out to him in New Zealand, and as the signature and date were not clearly visible, because of theaction of sea water, he had drawn them in himself. Addressing the Bench, Mr. E. D. Sargent, for Bender, submitted that the case should be dismissed. It was an unusual one and of importance to defendant. ■ There was no reported case I on which to interpret the meaning of the section under which Bender was charged, but he understood that, in a similar Auckland case, the prosecution was dismissed. Counsel contended that Bender had not used the title “Dr.” publicly within the meaning of the section. There was nothing of this kind on the window of his premises or in his advertisements, and the prospectus referred to in Court was issued, not by the defendant, but by a company. The section of the Statute was ill-drawn an'd he submitted, further, that the words “a degree, diploma or certificate issued by a university, institution, society or association,” were quite broad enough to absolve Bender in view of the diplomas he held. The use of the initials would not delude the public and initials now were used for all kinds of things. “The wor’d ‘doctor’ is not a term of magic, and its original meaning was no more than teacher,” 'said Mr. Sargent. Detective-Sergeant Sinclair submitted that if a master mechanic was entitled to use the initials M.M., a butcher’s assistant was entitled to call, himself a B.A. Moreover, there was grave doubt because of discrepancies in names and dates, whether Bender was the original holder of the diplomas He admitted filling one in in material parts. The magistrate said that doubt had been raised in his mind on this point, but the onus of proof was on the police, and it had not been discharged. The Court had no doubt that the use of the word “Dr.” by defendant was an infringement of the section. By this, defendant held out to the public something that might lead it to believe that be was a fully qualified graduate of a properly-constituted body, which had power to grant the title and had so conferred it on him. The use of the letters might, well influence some persons to think that Bender was more than ordinarily qualified in certain directions, but he was not prepared to say whether this would bring him within the purview of the statute. Defendant would, be convicted on his use of the title “Dr.” In fixing the penalty, the magistrate said that he would not treat the offence from a very serious point of view, because of the lapse of time before Render’s use of the titles was challenged.