ELECTRIC SHOCK SEQUEL

Taranaki Daily News, 8 June 1932, Page 3

ELECTRIC SHOCK SEQUEL

WASHING MACHINE INCIDENT

INSTALLATION AT FAULT. VENDORS CONVICTED AT ELTHAM. A case of particular interest, to those engaged in the electrical trade and to users of electrical appliances was heard in the Eltham Police Court yesterday, when J. B. Mac Ewan and Co., Ltd., were charged that on January 14, 1932, at Eltham, being persons undertaking the electrical wiring work of installing an electrical washing machine on premises occupied by F. H. Ham, they failed to' give notice thereof to the electrical supply authority of the district, the Taranaki Power Board, before beginning the work. They were further charged with connecting the electrical wiring with a source of supply before such wiring had been inspected, tested and approved and permission given to make such connection by the electrical supply authority. Edward Francis Clarke, an employee of the firm, was charged that, not being a registered electrical wireman or the holder of a provisional license, he did electrical wiring work, the installation of an electrical washing machine. The case was brought by the registrar of electrical wiremen. Counsel for the board of electrical wiremen stated that on January 14 the Taranaki Power Board received a message that Mrs. Ham had received, an electric shock from a washing machine recently installed on the premises. This was the first intimation the board had of the installation. The officials found that the installation was connected' in such a way that the machine itself was capable of being livened up to 230 volts. This was due to. an attachment, called a lamp adapter, being used to connect the machine with the power point, the point being for electric light in the wash-house. This had only, two wires and the connection should have been made to what was called a plug. This fitted, into a proper power point m the wall having three wires, including an earthing wire. This was a safety device to earth the machine and so prevent accidents. ■FIXED EARTH TO POINTS. Glarke. fixed the earth wire to one of the live points, and. instead of being earthed it became livened. The only safe contrivance was where there were three wires, and it was an impossibility to fasten three wires on two without connecting to a live wire. The machine was set on a concrete floor and as long as the operator was standing on wood she was comparatively safe. One day she bent over to fix the pump and put her foot on the concrete,, receiving a severe shock. Mrs. Hain managed to free herself of the electricity and collapsed A voltage of 230. often caused fatal accidents, and Mrs. Ham was fortunate' that she did not receive very severe injury. It was admitted that Clarke was not a registered wireman 01 the holder of a P lO /’ Blo^ 1 that Counsel for the defendants said that the facts outlined were substantially correct. Clarke was a milking ™ washing machines. It was at the re Lest of Mrs. Ham that he connected the machine by means of the eiectnc light point as there was n 0 point. She asked if this could be done, and Clarke replied: “Yes, but the cost would be dearer.” It was'thus connected and ran perfectiy for th^®; q Y of an hour. When Clarke left it wa in perfect order as far as he knew. He admitted that he did connect two wires to one portion of the adapter and X to the other. But this did not eonstitute electrical wiring w ? rk ; Clal t® sent a messenger to a shop in the town to purchase an adapter, and it was a common thing to. change a plug. # in Taranaki occasions had frequently ansmi 'when plugs had to be altered, there being various shapes and fittings. Au ada/ter was in exactly the same category. Section 19 of the 1925 Act applied to such circumstances as these.. Before one was entitled to qonnect with an electrical supply the installation must> first be tested and approved, but in this case the installation had already been tested and approved. .. All that Clarke did was to use P the washing machine, making use of the existing installation. The case was no different to that ' vher ® bought a standard lamp and P into an adapter in similar manner. Th did not constitute any offence unde the Act. The firm admitted that when they did installation work they had to have the work passed and approved. That was an entirely_ different matter to using an installation already in effect. ) DESIRE TO COMPLY. ■■■ ■.

As far as J. B. Mac Ewan and Go. were concerned there was no desire to commit' any breach, and the complainant board would admit that; their conduct had been in compliance with the ’ tions and all reasonable requests. There had been no previous complaint, nor had the board previously attempted to enforce any rule such as was now intended. Even if they had committed a technical breach—but which they di not adihit—it would be unfair to penalise them as the first offender. He expressed the extreme regret of both the firm and Clarke to Mrs. Ham for the unfortunate shock she received. But she was not blaming them, because she herself requested .that clarke c ° n the plu<r, which in all good faith he d > eve/if°wrongly so. What he/did, however, did not constitute electrical wiring W Twas further claimed that the charge of using the e< l ui P ll ? ent ,^ fore . t^®X 1 It had been tested also did not apply. It w-as not necessary for any notice to be given to the pov/er authority electrical wiring was done. Il! so no one would be able to go to< a .shop.and purchase a radiator and plug into his own home without first notifying t e b °Counsel for the prosecution said that his friend’s assertions regarding no previous complaints were not correct. In 1930 one of the firm’s employees ha been fined for disconnecting a pump and leaving live wires. All- in the trade had been circularised from time to time stating the requirements of the regulations. He quoted a list of accidents which had occurred during a few months, and said that there -had. been ten faval accidents due to amateurs installing electrical apparatus. He did not wish to make any reflection on the work of J. B. Mac Ewan and Co., but only wanted fo point out the dangers of not notifying mstallaThe magistrate remarked that u recent case of an unregistered wireman at Opunake should have caused all dealing in electrical equipment to take alarm. The sale of electrical appliances was not an offence, but it was an offence to connect the contrivance with the power without proper notification or by a qualified man. Section 4 said that no electrical work should be done by any other person than a registered wireman or the holder of a provisional license. The sooner people appreciated the position the better it would be for all concerned. Electricity was a very dangerous force and great cafe must be taken in handling it.

Defending council asked if there had been a three-prong plug would .it have been an offence to have plugged into it. Prosecuting counsel replied that it was an offence to plug in any apparatus whatever without’ first letting the authorities know.. The clerk of the Court pointed out that the Opunake case was published after the present offence took place.. Counsel said that last August circulars had been sent out. . The magistrate said that the circulars made the position perfectly'clear.and-the offence could not be regarded lightly. On the first charge MacEwan.and Co. would be fined £3 and £2 Is. fid. costs, and they would be convicted and discharged on the second. Clarke would be fined 1 £2 and £2 Is. fid. costs. , Prosecuting counsel said he wished toallay any nervousness regarding the use of electrical appliances in the., home. Provided the department’s regulations were observed there waa no dodger.