UNREGISTERED DENTIST.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIV, Issue 16159, 8 February 1913, Page 2

UNREGISTERED DENTIST.

A BREACH OF THE ACT PUNISHED. A judgment' of considerable interest to dentists and to the general public was delivered at the Magistrate's Court yesterday by Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., in a case heard on January 22, in which W. J. Dawson was charged on three informations with having, On July 8, 1912, used the word " dentist ", by informing one Frances Gray that he was a dentist; with having, on July 8, used the description, " Dominion Company. Mr W. J. Dawson', business manager,' with a print of an upper 6et of false teeth, tending to the belief that he or the Dominion Company was carrying on the practice ■of dentistry; and with having committed the latter offence again on October 8. In delivering judgment, the Magistrate said that the first charge must fail, since defendant did not inform Mrs Gray that he was a dentist. The second charge must also fail, as there was no evidence that the description set out was used at all on that date. The evidence in support of the third charge was that Mrs Gray had been to the defendant on July 8 and had arranged for, and had, a set of false teeth made for her, and had paid £1 deposit on July 12. On October 8 an account.was sent to her from the defendant on a sheet of notepaper, bearing the words and addition complained of. On these facte, the defendant was oharged with a breach of Section 21 of the Dentists Act, 1908. This section made it an offence for any unregistered person other than a medical practitioner to use the title "dentist or dental practitioner," or any other name, addition or ■ description implying that he was registered under the Act or was a person specially qualified to practise dentistry. This was as far as the English Act went. But the New Zealand Act also made it an offence to use the words "specially qualified" or "qualified" or to exhibit, either at his place of business or his residence (either alone or in combination with other words or letters), the words "dental company." "dental institute," etc., or any word, addition or description, implying that such person was registered under tho Act, was qualified to practise dentistry or was carrying on the practice of dentistry or was entitled to use such name. It. was a well-known fact that tlio making of artificial teeth was part of the practice of dentistry, and a woodcut representing a set or a partial set of teeth frequently formed part of a dentist's advertisement. Such a heading, therefore, as tho woodcut which appeared on the defendant's billheads would tend to the belief that he was carrving on the practice of dentistry. Tho defendant would therefore be convicted and fined £3 and costs..