ILLEGALITY OF CONTRACT

Taranaki Daily News, 16 April 1932, Page 11

ILLEGALITY OF CONTRACT

REGISTRATION OF WIREMEN.

INTERESTING POINT INVOLVED.

Where it appeared on the face of a contract that it was unlawful, or where it appeared from the evidence that the contract sued on was illegal, the Court would not enforce it, even though the defence of illegality was neither pleaded nor insisted on by the defendant. formed the basis of an interesting and somewhat involved reserved judgment, given by Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court at Opunake yesterday. The case was one in which William Thompson, a Maori motor-garage proprietor of Opunake, sued the Taranaki Maori Trust Board for £3l 10s. for work done and goods delivered in connection with the installation .of seventeen electric lights, including a switch board and the necessary wiring, in a building attParihaka. The installation was referred to as a “low-tension” one.

In giving judgment, the magistrate found that the Electric Wiremen’s Registration Amendment Act, 1928, section 4, enacted that “No electric wiring -work shall be done by. any person other than a registered electric wircman, or by the holder of a provisional license, and before any such work is begun the person undertaking the same shall give certain notices to certain authorities.” The Act of 1928 amended the Electric Wiremen’s Registration Act, 1925, and the manner of becoming a registered electric wireman was enacted in those statutes. How a “low-tension” installation differed from any other electric wiring installation was not explained to him, said the magistrate, but it was clear that no electric wiring work whatever might be done by any one who was not a registered electric wireman or the holder of a provisional license, and that every person committed an offence and was liable to a fine of £2O who did any electric wiring work contrary to the provisions of the Act. The magistrate found that the work done by the plaintiff was work within the meaning of section 4 of the Act of 1028—■ electric wiring work. The defence was conducted by two Maoris and was based upon squabbles that had arisen among a number of Maori dignitaries as to whether the work had been properly authorised. Whether the plaintiff was or was not a registered electric wircman or the holder of a provisional license, or had or had not given the notices required by section 4 had not been proved nor alluded to when the case closed. Certain contracts were prohibited by statute and in such cases, whether the prohibition was express or implied, a contract made in contravention of the statute was illegal and could not be enforced. Among such contracts was one to do an act prohibited under a penalty with the object of protecting the public. If the plaintiff when he did the wiring was not a registered electric wireman or the holder of a provisional license he did the work in contravention of the Act and could not succeed in an action for the price of the work. It was not established either that he was or was not so qualified. The defendant, no doubt through ignorance, did not challenge his qualification. If it had been made clear that he was not qualified when he did the work then judgment should go for the defendant, although the defendant did not take the point and might have been willing to waive it. The magistrate accordingly non-suited the plaintiff, leaving him the opportunity to bring the action again if in fact he were a registered electric wireman and the installation was not an act in contravention of the statute. There were no costs.