Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MACHINE NOT INSPECTED.

CONTRACTOR; FINED £lO. A WARNING TO TRADESMEN. b, (BY TELEGRAPH PRESS ASSOCIATION.) NELSON, March 29. A case of considerable interest to contractors and others was heard before Mr. T. E. Maunsell, S.M., today, when the Inspector of Machinery proceeded against W. H. Williamson, contractor, for using machinery for which a certificate had not been issued.

The ease arose out of an accident to an employee at the new hospital, in which the victim lost two or three fingers. In consequence of a subsequent inspection of the plant made by the inspector, it was found that no license had been issued for that particular machine.

The defendant pleaded guilty aim explained that through an oversight, no license had been obtained. Since the accident the plant had been dismantled. There had been no intention of evading the A lot. The inspector said there was no guard over the machine. If the department had been notified when it was erected, the use of the machine would have been prohibited until it was made safe. If the machinery had been inspected, the accident would probably not have happened, or it would not have been sucli a serious one. _ A The magistrate said he was afraid he would have to look upon the offence as a serious one. He thought it should he generally known by contractors and others who made use of machinery, that it had to be inspected by the department. The object was to see- to it that it 'A as safe for the workmen. The maximum penalty was £IOO. The inspector had stated that the accident would.not have happened if the law had taken them into account. The penalty must be substantial as a warning to other Tradesmen. A fine of £lO would he imposed, with costs £2 3s.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HAWST19260330.2.40

Bibliographic details

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 30 March 1926, Page 5

Word Count
301

MACHINE NOT INSPECTED. Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 30 March 1926, Page 5

MACHINE NOT INSPECTED. Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 30 March 1926, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert