New Britain herald., 1926-08-26
PLUMBER OWN LAWYER DOES GOOD JOB OF IT
Exposes Lack of Clarity in Ordinance During
 Court Trial
Photo by Johnson & Peterson. IYl nm

Acting as his o$n counsel and cross examining Building Inspector
 A. N. Rutherford and Plumbing h.
 spector P. J. Tormay, William
 Mitchell, aged 27, of 23S High
 street, fought the charges of engag-
 ing in the plumbing business with
 out a license, and doing plumbing
 work without having obtain a per
 init from the building department, in police court this morning. He was fined $5 on the first charge, execu- tion of judgment being suspended, and on the second charge, Judge filling suspended judgment, saying
 he could not convict him on the evi- dence offered. in view of the lack of clarity of the ordinance under which the prosecution was brought.
 According to the ordinance, only master plumbers can be prosecuted for failing to take out permit, and as the state had proven that Mitchell was not a licensed master plumber he could not be held to be subjected to the requirements of the ordinance Judge filling said. After court. Judge filling, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Greenstein and Building Inspector Rutherford studied the ordinances and agreed that there is question as to its application. They also discussed the question whether the work Mitchell was do- ing required a permit
 Mitchell pleaded not guilty to both charges and after the building in spector had completed his testimony Mitchell asked if he could ask ques- tions. Mir. Greenstein invited him to sit at the counsel table, and the cross examination started. Mitchell asked Rutherford if he is a plumber or has ever done plumbing work. The reply was negative. He ques- toned Rutherford and TormAy rela- tive to what constituted ordinary repairs and others terms used in the ordinance.
 Taking the stand, Mitchell showed his 1925 license. He said he had gone to the building department of- flee to renew his license but MT. Tormay could not make change for a dollar bill. MT. Hennessy, for mer building inspector, also could not make change, nor could the janitor, so Mitchell did not get the renewal. Ask by Judge filling why he did not go to the city clerk, the water department office of the tax office for change. Nit chell said he had not thought Of that procedure but he was surprised that IS was impossible to change S1 in the city building.
 Asked to answer affirmatively or negatively whether he has a 1926 i license, Mitchell tried to hedge. MT. Greenstein insisted that he answer and Mitchell said; Well not in my Pressed further for Q reply. he refused to answer. Judge | filling asked him if he believed he [ could drive an automobile year after 1 year without renewing his license and Mitchell said he realized that ! would not be permitted. but he | never considered his own case in hat light.
 There was a discussion as to the tind of plumbing work Mitchell was ioing in restaurant at 54 Broad | 'treet when the inspectors found | Jim. Mitchell asked the plumbing | Inspector if fixture can be re- placed without permit being ob- aimed. He also asked the plumbing Inspector to differentiate between a master plumber and a journeyman !
 Continued on Page seventeen)