ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 28 June 1928, Page 3

ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS.

BREACHES OE REGULATIONS

A TECHNICAL OFFENCE.

Arising from breaches of the Electric Wire men’s Registration Act and the electric wiring and supply regulations, a series o'f seven charges were preferred before Mr R. W. Tate, in the Hawera lO'ourt on Tuesday and on two counts, one of which was described by the magistrate .ais a purely technical breach, convictions were entered against Edwin Walter (Barringer, electrical engineer of Ha we ra, while one conviction was entered .against ,an employee, Charles William Bocock. Bocoek was charged on two counts (a) that not being a registered 'electrical wiremen or holder of a provisional license, he carried out wiring work on May S on the premises of E. Paterson, of Ohangai, and ('b) that about .January '2l he committed a similar offence in respect of work on the premises of F. 11. Ollerenshaw, of Hawera. As the employer of Bocoek, Barringer was charged on corresponding information laid by the Registrar of Electrical Wiremen of having permitted Bocock to carry out the .work. On the information of the Haweria -County Electric Light, Company, Barringer was charged on three? further counts (a) that at Hawera on January 21 he failed to notify the electrical supply authority in writing of the completion of the installation of a time switch on the premises of F. H. Ollerenshaw; (b) with allowing the current to be switched on before -the time switch had been inspected by the authority; and (c) that without lawful authority he tampered with the electric lines by cutting or removing the electric mainis connecting Ollerenshaw’s motor and connecting the time switch. Picas of not guilty were entered to each of the charges. Mr A. K. North conducted proceedings on behalf of the .prosecuting authorities and Mr P. O’Dea appeared for defendants.

After the hearing 'of the first charge against Bocock and an amendment by Barringer of his plea of guilty to the corresponding charge, the remaining charges except that relating to the 'cutting of the maims were withdrawn. 'Evan Evans, departmental! inspector and engineer for the liawera County Electric Light Company, gave evidence of having visited the house ait Taiporohenui at about 10.30 a.m. and found Bocoek engaged on a conduit installation in the roof. He waited about an hour but saw no sign of Barringer, nor was the latter there when witneiss visited the place on the following day. •Mr O’Dea: Besides being the departmental inspector you are also the engineer for the Hawera Electric Light Company. Witness: Yds.

f 'Have you ever reported the foreman for breaches of regulations as you have done in this ease? —No; but since the regulations have been in force the eom. panv has been very careful. -Did you go out there with the object of catching Barringer?—No. If Mr Patterson says that practically the whole time the work was in progress Mr Barringer was there he would be wrong? —I would absolutely deny that.

Edwin Walter Barringer, the employer of. Bocock, said in evidence that the latter had been clashed as on improve on May 8, though he had a't that time passed his examinations and had since been registered. Bocock was fully qualified, but had not been entrusted with installation work unless under the supervision of witness. In the instance before the court witness had supervised the work throughout and just before the arrival of the inspector (Evans), had gone away to look for the latter. Witness was away (for about half an hour only. Witness considered that it was unsatisfaetorjr to have the engineer of an electric light company also acting as the .Government inspector. Whereas the inspector had passed black conduit, installation work done by the company, ho had insisted, in a case specified by witnos'.s, that his firm should use the move costly galvlan. ised conduit. Defendant Bocock stated in evidence that his work was always supervised by Barringer. 'On the day of the visit of the inspector Barringer had gone to town a little- time before the .arrival of the inspector. Claude- Albert Glees on, who had been engaged .in.building work, on the house, .gave -evidence <of having seen Barringer working on the 'electrical installation. ‘ ‘ This off ence seems to have been, a technical one purely. ’ ’ said the Ma-gis-tahe, “but though defendant amay have hral * the necessary knowledge and been fully qualified to undertake the work, he was not a registered wire-mam and according to the regal talons could not therefore do the work. In such a case it might (be reasonable to refrain from placing too rigid an interpretation on the instruction of the Act, but there is no doubt the offence was committed. It cannot be suggested that the registered main in charge of isuch a job can go away and leave the- work to be done by am apprentice. ’ ’ Dealing with remarks made on the system of inspection the Magistrate said that if anyone had reason for complaint it could be ventilated through the channels provided in the Act.

Bocock was convicted without a fine and ordered to pay 10s costs.' On the 'amendment 'by Barringer of his plea of not guilty to one of guilty to the ehaJrgc of permitting am employee not registered as a wirenmn to do the work, he was convicted and ordered to pay 10s cost's and £1 Is solicitor’s fee.

THE 'REMAINING- CHARGE. On the remaining charge against Barringer, evidence was given by Pencdvail Webster Lamlb, manager of the Electric Light Company, that a month after the work at Gi l Cre nshaw ’si premise's was completed he had received advice 'of it. In response to the request of witness, Barringer had visited witness and in the presence of the company’s engineer and the foreman had admitted that his man Charlie had d'onle the work complained of. Barringer had averred, that he ilmd telephoned the engineer and received the latter ’is-per mission to connect the time switch'. This, however, had been denied by the engineer. The engineer, Evan Evans', quoted from his diary when, stating in evidence that on December 21 he had given Barringer permission to make certain: 'installations on Oilcrenshaw’s premises, but had .warned Mnu not to touch the time switch. He corroborated the evidence given by the company’s manager “You can’t 'swing i't on to, me. I positively deny that I even received the message,” said witness 1 when under cross-cxamlination he was asked by Air O ’Dea if he could mot remember speaking over the ’phone from the power house to Barringer on December 29 and giving him permission to connect tbh'& time switch, but adding: “Don’t touch any seals.” Witness said-he woiuld

UlasS Siuc'h :t statement on Balnriugetr’s paint* as a- fabrication. Witness admitted he was hazy in relation to certain points raised by counsel, but wa(s emphatic that the alleged telephone conversation had not taken place, and also denied having visited OHeremshOW’s premises to inspect the time switch before Barringer ’is letter of advice was received by the company on January 31. The company Is foreman, John Charles Downey, gave corroborative evidence of the interview with Barringer when the latter had been .taxed with the offence. ‘ ‘ You had before you a. two-penny hiappmmy case -earlier .in (the day aind there is nothing more in this one,” said Mr O’Dea, in opening the defence. Giving 'evidence, defendant BarrimgeT said he had applied for permission to install the time switch on November 3. He produced the. form issued by the company on November 7, -giving the necessary permission. The installation had been irequested as the result of a complaint by Mr Ollerenshaw of apparent faults in the water heating system, and as the result of the work (defendant had carried out a saving of about £7O a year on 'electric power charges had been -effected. On December 29 he had ’phoned the engineer at the power house, asking permission to connect the switch. This had been given by Evans, who stipulated that no seals should be broken. The breaking of seals was not required and the work had been completed. About n week after the job was dome he visited Ollerenshaw as the result of a 'Complaint and had been told that the company’s 'engineer and the foreman had inspected 'the work in the meantime. Defendant had located the fault, and after referring, to the engineer and foreman had repaired the switch and subsequently replaced 1 it. It was mo't then sealed, but when, after the lapse of about another week, ho found it was 1 sealed;, he also ascertained t'lialt two screws hod been removed. This meant that the clock wa's still “on” and was defeating the object for which it had been installed. Corroborative evidence of a conversation over the ’phone before Barringer connected the switch between Barringr and another* person whom he believed to be the company engineer, iwais given by Frederick H. Oileremskaw, who also stated that when the went wrong about a week and a half later it had been inspected by the 'engineer aind the company's foreman. The wife of the previous witness also deposed to having seen the engineer and foreman on the occasion of the visit mentioned, .and an. employee who had commenced working in the tea rooms on January 12 said that about a week later the company’s engineer and manager had inspected the switch. The day following there had 1 been no hot water supply. After, the concluding remarks by counsel, the Magistrate held that the offence had been committed. Defendant was fined £1 and 10s costs, and ordered to pay £1 Is solicitor’s- fee.