FINE IMPOSED

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 40, 15 August 1925, Page 9

FINE IMPOSED

PRACTISING DENTISTRY

ENFORCING THE ACT.

Charged with having practised dentistry without being a. registered dentist or medical practitioner, Ernst . Boock appeared before Mr. C. R. Orr-Walker, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon. He was also charged with having held himself out as prepared to practise dentistry and with having held himself out as practising dentistry. Mr. D. S. Smith appeared on behalf of the complainants, the New Zealand Dental Association, and defendant was represented by Mr. H. Cornish. Mr. Smith said that the three informations were laid under section 2 of the Dental Amendment Act, 1921, wherein was specified the nature of the work which only a registered dentist must undertake. " There was certain exceptions, such as urgent caseß when a medical practitioner was considered capable of certain dental treatment. Boock was the owner of premises known ai the Dental Institute, in Courtenay place, and was an unregistered person. He came within the provisions of section 7 of the amended Act in that he was a person who, prior to the passing of the Act in 1921, was engaged in dentistry work. Boock, if he passed an examination, was entitled to carry on the business until 31st March, 1924, but he failed in the examination, and therefore he had been carrying on the work of dentistry unlawfully.- The New Zealand Dental Association had set to work to,try to stop these breaches of the law, and they were behind the informations. On this particular' occasion Singer had seventeen teeth extracted at the Dental Institute, arid both Boock and Fountain, and a medical practitioner were present. This operation took place about two and a-half months ago. Ori the 29th July last Singer went back and asked for Boock, and told him that his jaws were very sore. Singer also said that he thought his jaw Bad been broken. Boock placed Singer in a dentist's chair, in a surgery.off the waiting-room, and felt his gums. Boock, with'aid of a skull showed Singer where the broken parts were coming from. Boock then painted Singer's gums with iodine to relieve tho pain, and when Singer asked Boock when he could take an impression for Singer's false teeth, Boock said that it would be from six weeks to two months yet as the gums were too sore. The painting with iodine was merely incidental to the facts of the examination and the advice regarding the false teeth, and tho fact that Boock himself had been present at the operation when seventeen teeth were removed. The practice of dentistry, as defined by Section 3 of the Dentists Amendment Act, 1921, includes the giving of any "treatment, advice, or attendance of or to any persons as preparatory to or for the purpose of or in connection with the fitting, insertion, or fixing of artificial teeth."

Harry Singer, a cutter, gave evidence on the above lines, and said that so far as he knew, his teeth were extracted by some person other than Boook on the previous occasion. Witness was under an anaesthetic at the time.

Evidence was also given by K. 0. Morpeth', a registered dentist, and G. A. Nicholls. The latter said that he had visited the dental rooms twice, and on one occasion had seen Boock coming out of the surgery. ; i -Mr. ■ -Cornish:., said that ■ the:' evidenpe" was ambiguous: " Boock had declined to take an impression of Singer's gums, and had said that the mouth was at.mat.; time too soft. Mr. Smith had to prove that Boock was praotlsing dentistry, and it had to be proved that Boock had committed an offence. The Act had to be construed reasonably and strictly, and he asked the Bench, to remember that Boock, at the time of the alleged offence, had the business for sale, and had never fixed or made false teeth. He urged that defendant should be given the benefit of the doubt, and the case dismissed.

His Worship said that he thought defendant had brought himself within the meaning of the Act. This was the first case of its kind, and it was in the nature of a test case. He would convict defendant on the charge of practising dentistry, and fine him £5. The other two charges would be dinmiased.