REGISTERING OF OPTICIAN

Taranaki Daily News, 14 October 1930, Page 9

REGISTERING OF OPTICIAN

OBJECTION BY THE BOARD QUESTION OF CHARACTER RAISED APPEAL IN NEW-PLYMOUTH. An appeal against a decision of the Board of Opticians in refusing an application for registration under- the Opticians’ Act, 1928, came before an appeal court set up according to the provisions of the Act, and was heard at New Plymouth yesterday. This is the first case under the Act. After hearing the evidence the Court stated that it would consider the evidence and give its decision in due course. The appellant was Henry Reedman, formerly “Reefman.” The Appeal Court consisted of Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., with Dr. J. R. Mecredy as assessor for the Opticians’ Board and Mr. P. E. Stainton as assessor for the appellant. Mr. G. M. Spence appeared on behalf of the appellant and Mr, C., H. Weston for the board.

Reedman had made an application for registration under the Act, said Mr. Weston, but his application had been refused. There was no question, so far as was. known, as to his qualifications and the board seemed not satisfied ■with him on the grounds of his character and reputation. As far as was known that was the only ground for the refusal of the registration. When the application was dealt with he had not been given any’ opportunity of stating his case, nor had he been given any reason for the refusal of his registration. He had not been given any reason for any allegations that might have been made against him, and this was really the first opportunity afforded him of stating his lt seemed an unusual way of going about the business, but counsel said he could see no other way according to the provisions of the Act. CASE FOR THE APPELLANT. For the appellant Mr. Spence said that Reedman did not know really what he had to place before the Court. Had the appellant been told the reasons fol’ the refusal to grant him registration he would have known : what he had to answer, but at present he was under the very great disadvantage of not knowing, and thought it looked like unfairness and almost like un-British. treatment. It seemed that all - that could bo done was for the appellant to go into the witness-box and state the facts • relating to his application, and then for the objections to be brought out in the course of croSs-exaininatidn. The appellant was of Jewish extraction, and he felt there was some racial feeling against him. In giving evidence Reedman. stoed that he had carried on business inAuckland, Kaitaia, Kawakawa, Hawera and New Plymouth. Previously he had traded as the British Optical Company, but since an illness three years ago he had carried on under the style of an Egyptian and Asian herbalist and optician. He admitted he was separated from his wife in 1927, but ho order had been asked or made for maintenance, and since that time he had regularly contributed towards the support of his two children. The difference between him and his wife had been over the manner of bringing up the children. Some questions were asked as to a particular form of advertising which the appellant adopted, reference being made to the picture of a woman in a bath, which witness said was meant to show that some herbs which 1 he sold for use in connection .with bathing had a beneficial effect ,on the skin. He denied that lie had taken money for spectacles and failed to supply the glasses, or that lie prescribed glasses fol- people without regard to whether the glasses were really of any use to his patients. A number of questions were also risked as to premises he had occupied in different parts of Auckland, and whether he had always paid the rent for them. He admitted there had bebn stale trouble in one case, but said he always paid all his debs, if not at the time they Were due as soon as he was able. He was not accustomed to being summoned for debts. He denied that lie was ri hriwker. He was also asked some questions Of a technical character, which counsel said was directed to the pointas to his honesty in dealing with clients. The main accusation that the Court had to consider, said the magistrate, was the accusation that Reedman had acted fraudulently by taking money foisaying he Could do things that he could not do. If Reedman had practised for four years he was entitled to. qualify under the Act, so long as liis character was good. Mr. Spence said that Reedinriri had been in practice since 1(112. Reedman could produce hundreds of testimonials as to his work and character. Mr. Weston suggested that the best thino- would be for Reedman to call witnesses and then the other side could call its witnesses.

To Mr. Spence Reedriian stated that he believed the separation between his wife and himself, had been brought about by people Who deliberately set out to turn her against him.