UNREGISTERED DENTIST

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20650, 23 August 1930, Page 13

UNREGISTERED DENTIST

PROSECUTION OF MECHANIC. WORDING IN ADVERTISEMENT. CASE BROUGHT AT HAMILTON. [BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN COIUIKSI'ONDKNT.] HAMILTON, Friday. A charge'of using a description lending lo make the public believe that ho was carrying on the practice of a dentist was preferred against J. L. Shannon, denial mechanic, Hamilton, in tho Hamilton Magistrate's Court to-day. Defendant was also charged with practising as a dentist without being registered. Mr. R. N. Moody appeared for tho informant, 11. D. Crump, and Mr. P. G. Ilarkness represented defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Edward Henry Quill, of tho staff of the Waikato Times, said defendant authorised a replace advertisement on Juno 24. Tho caption "dentistry" was in tho original advertisement, which defendant saw. In the advertisement appeared the words: "All classes of artificial denture work expertly performed."

Functions of Mechanics. Frederick Winstone Craddock, lecturer in dental mechanics, defined the words contained in the advertisement as including the making of upper and lower dental plates. The work, lie said, would involve four or five visits on the part of tho patient. To do tho work properly tho operator would require as a minimum a knowledge of anatomy, physiology, chemistry and physics. The making and fitting of plates formed an important part of a dentist's work. To Mr. Ilarkness witness said mechanics were employed by dentists to partly make the dentures. Part of tho work of making tho plates was attendance on the patients, and this work was done only by registered dentists. A mechanic need not bo registered. It was tho custom that the registered dentist took the preliminary impression, and then handed the plaster impression to thfc mechanic, to make tho denture. The fitting was done by the dentist. Mr. Ilarkness contended that the word "dentistry" above the advertisement was not authorised by defendant. He said his client claimed to bo a mechanic and a mechanic only. Whatever dentistry ho did ho did under the supervision of a registered dentist. Nine Years' Experience.

Defendant said he had had nino years' experience as a dental mechanic. When a patient came to him ho sent him to a registered dentist, who took the impression and did the fitting. Witness said he had no dental chair and no instruments. lie did no mquth work, but only made the denture. He advertised to let the public know he performed quickBervice repair work. The magistrate, Mr. Wyvern Wilson, S.M., said he would hear the second charge before giving his decision. Walter Ellis Scott, farmer, Tahuna, said last June he saw defendant's advertisement and went to him for a top set of teeth. Defendant took him to Mr. Tuck, a dentist, and the latter took an impression. Mr. Tuck took a second impression later. On the third visit to Hamilton witness saw Shannon, who fitted his teeth and then handed them to him. They seemed to fit then, but he had been unable to wear them since. Defendant Admits Mistake.

Defendant said Mr. Tuck took the impression for Scott's teeth and witness made tho denture. He admitted that ho made a mistake in putting the teeth into Scott's mouth. Tho teeth -probably wanted only a minute's work to make them fit properly. He charged Scott £3 15s for tho work, and out of this ho would pay Mr. Tuck 7s 6d for the fitting work. Mr. Harkness said that except for placing the teeth in Scott's mouth defendant had done no other work than he would have done had he been employed by a dentist as a mechanic. The magistrate said that with respect to the first count, ho could only find that the advertisement was headed "Dentistry," with defendant's knowledge. The advertisement was for public information and not for the dental profession. Ho had certainly done the work of a dentist on Scott, who was his and not Tuck's patient. Defendant was fined £2 on the second count and convicted and discharged on the first charge. Ho was ordered to pay £6 9s costs.