NOT INSPECTED

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19541, 30 March 1926, Page 7

NOT INSPECTED

UNPROTECTED MACHINERY CONTRACTOR OMITS DUTY. COURT IMPOSES SUBSTANTIAL PENALTY. [Per Press A ssoHatlon.V NELSON, March 29. A case of considerable interest to contractors and others was heard before Mr. T. E. Maunsell. S.M., to day, when the Inspector of Machinery proceeded against AV. H. AVilliamson. contractor, for using machinery for which a certificate had not been issued. The case arose out of an accident to an employee at the now hospital, whereby the victim lost two or throe fingers, and in consequence of a subsequent inspection of the plant made by the inspector it was found that no license had been issued for this particular machine. Defendant pleaded guilty and explained that through an oversight no license had been obtained. Since the accident the plant had been dismantled. There had been no intention to evade the Act. The inspector said there was no guard over tho machine. If tho Department had been notified when it was erected the use of the machine would have boon prohibited until it was made safe. If the machinery had been inspected the accident would probably not have happened, or it would not have been such a serious one.

The Magistrate said he was afraid he would have to look upon the offence as a serious one. He thought it should be generally known by contractors and others who used machinery that it had to be inspected by the Department. The object was to see that it was safe for workmen. The maximum penalty was £lOO. The inspector had stated that the accident would not have happened if the law had been complied with. He must also take into account the fact that the penalty must be a substantial one as a warning to other tradesmen. A fine of £lO would be imposed, with costs £2 3s.