MACHINERY ACT.

Grey River Argus, 30 March 1926, Page 5

MACHINERY ACT.

CONTIIACTriK’S BBEACH. SUBSTANTIAL 1 INF.. NI LSON. Marell 29. A case of considerable interest b contractors and others was heard before Mr. T. E. Maunsell, S..\L, to day, when the Inspector of Machinery proceeded against W. H. Williamson contractor, tor using- machinery f<u which a certificate had not been is which a certificate had not been is sued. The case arose out of an acci dent to an employee at the new Hos pital, whereby the victim lost two o three finajers, and. in consequence o* a subsequent inspection of the plant made by the Inspector, it was fount that no licence had lieen issued foi this particular machine. The defendant pleaded “guilty." IL explained that, through an oyer sight, no license had been obtained Since the accident, the plant had beer dismantled. There had been no intention to evade the Act. The Inspector said there was n< guard over the machine. If the Department had been notified when it was erected, the use of the machim would have been prohibited until i 1 was made safe. If the machinery had been inspected, the accident would probably not have happened, or it would nut have been such a serious one. The Magistrate said he was afraid that ho would have to look upon the offence as a serious one. He thought it should be generally known bv contractors and others who used machinery that it. had to bo inspected b\ the Department. The object was to se< that it was safe for the workmen. The maximum penalty, he said was Y)100. The inspector had stated that the accident would not have hapnened if the law had been complied with. Re mn«also take into account that the penalty must be a substantial one. As c warning to other tradesmen. A firn* of £lO would be imposed, wth costs £ -? 3s.