CHURCH BUILDER IN COURT

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 13 September 1928, Page 4

CHURCH BUILDER IN COURT

SCAFFOLDING REGULATIONS. NOMINAL BREACH SHOWN. Attention to the regulations relating to scaffolding on buildings was di’awn in the Hawera Court to-day, when F. J ulian, builder, was charged before Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M., with failing to ensure that ladders extended the required five feet above the level served' by scaffolding erected at the Roman Catholic Church in progress of building in -Victoria Street.

In evidence the inspector, William Johif Berryman, said he had paid a visit to the building on August 8. The scaffolding was extensive, reaching in places to a height of 40 feet. One of the ladders reached a height of four feet above the level of the scaffolding it served; two others were 2ft 6in above the scaffolding level, and the ladder which reached the highest point was only 18 inches above the scaffolding level. Defendant appeared to think the ladders provided were sufficient, but witness directed the former’s attention to the regulation requiring ladders to be at least five feet above the scaffolding, ■ The magistrate: What is the object of the provision ? The inspector ': To ensure support by hand holds to a workman on reaching the level. Without the support there is ah element of danger. Defendant said that by the time the inspector left- the laddei’s were fixed. He contended, however, that in some cases, such as a ladder placed under the eaves, it was impossible to fix it for five feet above the scaffolding level. The ladder which reached the highest level did- not give sufficient support, said' the inspector in reply to the magistrate’s question as to whether danger was involved. Defendant’s firm was a- well-known one with a good reputation. '

The magistrate: Yes. That is my knowledge of the firm. A man in the trade, however, should know the regulations. ' ■ I am satisfied an offence was committed, but the occasion is one which 'mlls. only for the justification of the law and for calling the attention of others to it, concluded the magistrate. Remarking that a nominal penalty would meet the ease, he imposed a fine of os with costs totalling £1 7s Bd-.