ARCHITECT FINED

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 51, 7 September 1928, Page 11

ARCHITECT FINED

TITLE UNLAWFULLY USED

"BREACH COMMITTED UNWITTINGLY"

An architect, Edwin Hoyden Wells, was charged in the Magistrate's Court to-day with unlawfully using tho words "registered architect" in connection with his business, and also, by so doing, causing people to believe he was a member of the Institute of Architects. ' Mr. E. Kennedy prosecuted on behalf of tho Now Zealand Institute of Architects. Mr. Kennedy snid that the informations were laid under section 27. of the New Zealand Institute of Architects Act, 1913, which provided that every person who, not being a member of the institute,- used in connection with his name under which he carried on business tho title "registered architect," or tho initials "F.N.Z.1.A." or "A.N.Z.1.A.," committed an offence liable to a fine not exceeding £50. Mr. Wells ceased to be a member of the institute in 1926, and on 24th May of this year was still using the titlo "registered architect." Mr. E. Page, S.M.: "What caused him to cease to be a. member?" Mr. Kennedy: '''The non-payment of fees.'' Mr. B. Egley, counsel for Wells, sub-' nutted that tho breach had been committed unwittingly, and not defiantly. Mr. Wells became a registered architect in 1012, and until tho time he left for the war in 1915 had paid his fees. Ho understood that the defendant was automatically kept on the register, and that after 1919, when he commenced as an architect with a construction eom.pany, he was still registered and still paid his fee, which previously had been £2 2s. During, the war period, counsel understood that the fee was increased to £6 6s. When Mr. Wells came back from the war suffering from an injury to his spine which detracted from his ability to work, he had difficulty in reinstating himself, and had a hard struggle to make ends meet. Having failed to pay his fee, Mr. Wells was notified that his name would be struck off the rolls. He had used his old signboard at his new office in the Druids' Chambers, and had also sent out some circular letters on old paper bearing tho title and the letters complained about. Mr. Wells's new paper, howover, did not have the letters on it, and ' i the telephone directory and in a recent advertisement he was doscribas only an architect. Counsel suggested that there was no contention on the part of the prosecution that Mr. Wells, who had several excellent testimonials, was incompetent. The Magistrate said that the Act rendered an offender liable to a fine of £50, and it was designed obviously to protect the public. Wells was fined £10 and costs on the first charge, the second charge being withdrawn at the suggestion of the Magistrate.