THE SCAFFOLDING ACT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19061, 4 July 1925, Page 14

THE SCAFFOLDING ACT.

CHARGE AGAINST BUILDER. PERSECUTION ALLEGED. An allegation that the Labour Department was persecuting him was made in the Magistrate's Court yesterday by a builder, Edward Stevenson (Mr. Hall Skelton), who was charged with a breech of the Scaffolding and Excavating Act. Mr. J. Hollows, for the department, said he had visited buildings being erected on the Sun Glen and Copje Estates in order to remove the stigma of the allegation by defendant that he was being persecuted.

Mr. Hall Skelton, interjecting, said that two two-storoy houses were being erected nearby but no notice was taken of them by the inspectors.

Mr. Hollows said it would not matter if there were 99 such houses in coarse of erection. If defendant was guilty of a breach 6f the regulations he was liable to a penalty. Mr. Hall Skelton: He is not. Mr. Hollows said the matter was mentioned to the inspector of scaffolding, who examined the house and found it to be 20ft. high. Around it was a scaffold 12ft. in height. This was condemned as it did not comply with the regulations. When Inspectors Hurley and Murdoch visited the house on May 15 the scaffold was still in place and Stevenson declared he had no intention of removing it. He also added that as soon as the building was finished he was going to " stump the country from the North Cape to the Bluff." The scaffolding was measured by defendant, who said he had given his men warning that it was not to exceed 12ft. in height. Mr. Hal! Skelton said the proceedings were taken under section 5 of the Act, which said that no person must undertake the erection of any scaffolding or building work which, in the course of erection, might incur the risk of a fall of 12ft. or more. The essence of the clause was contained in the words " the risk of a fall of 12ft. or more." The defence was that in the particular house that risk was not there, and that with the slope of the ropf one could use the scaffolding and work on the house without any risk at The defendant gave evidence in which he described the work and the scuffolding itself. At this stage the Court adjourned until Monday in order to allow the magistrate on opportunity of viewing the building.