MACHINE NOT INSPECTED.

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

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.