Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

ELECTRICIAN CHARGED.

WATER HEATER INSTALLED. WORK NOT AUTHORISED. [BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT.] "WELLINGTON, Saturday. Charges of installing an electric water heater without permission and of connecting it, the first prosecutions of their kind to be brought in Wellington, were denied by N. W. A. Newbold, electrical contractor, who appeared before Mr. E. Page, S.M., in the Police Court. Defendant was represented by Mr. F. C. Spratt and Mr. J. M. Tudhope appeared for the City Council.

Mr. Tudhope said it was necessary that notice of wiring should be given to the supply authority in order that the progress of any work could bo inspected, as usually about 75 per cent, of wiring was covered up. There was no suggestion that inefficient work had been done in the present instance, the whole question hinging upon failure to give notice. Defendant had completely rewired a large house in Salamanca Road in order to connect up with the new voltage. This was inspected and passed by the council, but later defendant had installed wires and connected up a water-heating system. No notice had been 1 given of this, and it was in respect of this part of the work that the prosecution had been brought.

Mr. Spratt said tho defence was that defendant was not liable. It was admitted that the work was done, but it was carried out by defendant's foreman while he was out of the city.~~ Defendant had no knowledge of the work being done. It was in fact carried out contrary to the foreman's duty. The Magistrate: You say that if an employer' sends a foreman to do some work and he connects it up without permission, the employer is not liable ? Mr. Spratt: He could only be held liable if he instructed the work to be done. This foreman is clearly liable. . The Magistrate: I dare say he is. Do you say that you can legally disregard anything an employee does under this statute unless the employer has a personal knowledge of it ? Mr. Spratt: Yes, or unless the work is directly authorised to be done. Throughout the Electrical Wiremen's Registration Act "personal liability" is stressed to the utmost. After hearing lengthy evidence and legal argument the magistrate reserved his decision.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19300324.2.145

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20521, 24 March 1930, Page 11

Word Count
373

ELECTRICIAN CHARGED. New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20521, 24 March 1930, Page 11

ELECTRICIAN CHARGED. New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20521, 24 March 1930, Page 11

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert