BREACH OF ACT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 249, 20 October 1937, Page 9

BREACH OF ACT

FAILURE TO NOTIFY NOMINAL PENALTY IMPOSED At the Wanganui Magistrate's Court yesterday, on the information of Inspector E. Baker, R. and E. Tingey and Co., Ltd., were charged that between September IS and 27 they did without having first notified the Inspector of Scaffolding, in the prescribed manner, begin building work at the Rutland Hotel premises, such work incurring the risk of a fall of 12ft. or more to any person engaged thereon. Mr G. Currie appeared for the defendants and pleaded guilty. Inspector Baker said that the firm employed 20 painters and two apprentices and on the Rutland Hotel job three men were working from September 18. A week later Mr Herd reported the death of a workman to I the department, this being the first I intimation the department had of this particular job being started. “I want to say in fairness to this firm that this is the first occasion on which they have offended and also that the i death of the workman was in no way connected with the application having I been overlooked,” said the inspector.

“It was due to the fault of the workman himself.” Mr Currie thanked the inspector for his explanation and said he wanted to stress that the unfortunate tragic death of the workman had no connection whatever with this offence. The Act provides that in every case where work is being done which involves a risk of a fall of 12ft. or more, notice must be given to the inspector. In a painter's business, where roots nave to be painted, it means that practically every job has to be notified Although the notification is aent in it does not follow that inspection will take place at once and on this particular job if the notice had been ?.en during the week the inspection ■.•.■■.dd not have taken place before the :> . blent. This is one of the oldest i vis in Wanganui, added counsel, :. 1 has been in business from 60 to ’.ears, and during that time has L ft up a reputation of carrying out irplicitly every obligation laid upon i by the Legislature. Mr Herd has en manager of the painting department for 25 years and during that ,i criod there was only one other occa- ■ when he inadvertently omitted to give the notice required by the Act. Tingey and Co. have the best j reputation in the matter of giving notice to the department of any firm in business in Wanganui. The gear on this job was in thoroughly good order and all gear used by the firm was always kept in thoroughly good order. Counsel asked the Court to dismiss the information as being trivial under the circumstances. The magistrate, Mr J. H. Salmon, said he could not do that because it was clearly a breach of Sub-section 3 of Section 5 of the Act. He thought it just as well to make it clear to the public that there was no suggestion of defendant not supplying scaffolding. This was merely a breach of the provision which requires that notice should be given to the inspector of all work which involves a fall of 12 feet or more. The Act provides for a 120 penalty, but he considered a 10s penalty, with costs /Is would meet the case. ________