A COMPULSORY BATH. '

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 582, 10 August 1909, Page 4

A COMPULSORY BATH.

... —■ ■ ; »— ■: MANACER AND INMATE. > COSTLEY HOME INCIDENT. . '■ . (By Telegraph.-Special OorrespondcDt.) , , Auckland, August 9. ■ A judgment of importance to benovolent institutions wan given by Mr. G. C. Ciittcn, to-day ill tho caaa of. Law v. Bannermail, a % claim of £10 damages- for assault,* Plaintiff is an iiimato of the Gostlcy Home, ' and defendant, the manager of ,t3io institution, forcibly gave- him a oath. ; . ■ "There is no difficulty about . tho law," said his Worship. "In law the manager was clcarly wrong. The manager Bays, however, that under the by-laws of iho'institution the inmates are required' to- have a batli'; that on the day appointed for bathing pla.irit.iff rofused to take a bath, and that, 111 t.lio cir>. eumstancos of the case he was justified in the interests of tho institution,: and of : tho plaintiff himself, in compelling the plaintiff to.tako a bath. He therefore asks tliat,tho damages, if any, bo merely nominal. From the evidonco put before me I am led .to'conclude that the fault in .the-first. instance lay with tho plaintiff. . When requested by a new • attendant, who did not know the individual .habits of tho inmates, to take a bath, instead of explaining that lie: regularly r took his bath, ho' got angry and refused, using rude and objectionablo language. I am satisfied, too, that no more force was used' than was necessary to give plaintiff the bath,'and that the plaintiff BufferedHo harm.'' On! tho , other hand, tiie defendant now admits that had he been fully aware', of the: circiimstancos ho_ would not have compelled tlw plaintiff to take a bath. He was notiuvaro that plaintiff took a bath regularly, 'and Ko did not asoertain the fact before giving, him the bath.' The plaintiff had refused, to take : a bath. ; He thought from : his ' appcanmoo • that ho needed a bath,. and lie thought ' 'it' necessary for the maintenance of discipline ,to compel him to" have a bath, and that tho' defendant was under the. impression l he had l , authority to do so under tho by-laws of the'; institution.' The " by-law gives the manage) - ' no such authority. It is the .business-of the manager of. such an institution to keep-him-, self fully informed of his powers and duties, and'ho is in fault if he: does not do so. ;',He had no excuse in this case. The by-laws give no -.'author ity to tho manager to oompulsoiuly bath the, inmates, and there ,ivere no special circumstances' to justify •'M manager's!; action. The position, therefore, amounts to this: Tho'manager 'practically admits now . that ho would not have aotod'as he did if ho ' had been fully informed of the circumstances, and his not "being fully informed of the circumstances was his own fault for not making ! proper inquiries. Further, oven if. the. circumstances were, as he thought then lie would still have been acting without authority in doing as he did, and that he did,' not know lie was wrong was due to his own ; default in not properly informing himself as , to his powers and duties. I assess the dam- 1 -, ages at £5." Judgment was. entered for plaintiff accordingly. ) .