PAEROA HOSPITAL.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 5050, 10 November 1926, Page 2

PAEROA HOSPITAL.

DISCUSSION BY THAMES BOARD

BREACH OF FAITH ALLEGED.

The matter of the erection of the Paeroa hospital was. again brought before the notice pt the Thames Hos-. pital .Board at its meeting on Monday by a letter from the Paedoa Borough Council drawing the attention of the board to its responsibilities in regard to certain property apd lands held in tf(Ust and embodied in an order of the Supreme Court under the hand of Judge Stringer and dated February 18, 1924. The terms of the scheme were drafted by the board’s solicitor in conjunction with the solicitor fo r the trustees, and was definitely accepted by the board. A portion of the order of the Court was,: ‘That the said board shpjl erect <Ai the Land forming the real property, held by the trustees, a maternity home containing six beds and a casualty ward containing two beds, and the balance of all moneys and all personal property shall be applied towards the erection and equipment of the said maternity home and casualty waid and towards the maintenance of such matternity and casualty ward as a foreran! ”

The council reminded the board that its, possession of the. property and funds was associated with the responsibilities of the trust, and as the date Of acceptance of same was nearly two years ago, the council thought it reasonable to definitely request the board to discharge its trust and obligations. The council would be glad, therefore, to know definitely when the building would be proceeded with. The chairman (Mr W. E. Hale) said that the board could duly acquaint the council of the decision arrived at last meeting. Mr P. E. Brenan said that the council was already aware of the board’s decision.

Mr E. L. Walton said that he had looked into the matter, and moved “That the secretary reply to the Mayor of Paeroa and point Out, firstly, that the Mayor apparently assumes that the board has refused to carry out the terms of the trust; secondly, the Mayor be informed of the terms of the resolution passed by the board at its October meeting; thirdly, that this board has a discretion in thq matter, and in the exercise of that discretion passed the said resolution ; fourthly, that while the Mayor of Paeroa has drawn attention to clause A of paragraph 2 of the Court order, he has apparently overlooked clause B, which provides For the bdard closing the home; and, lastly, .thatl in the opinion of the board it is wiser to defer the erection of the maternity hospital than to erect it and then find it necessary to exercise the powers given under clause B.”

Mr C. W. Parfitt seconded the motion.

Mr Brenan said that he could not agree with Mi- Walton’s remarks. The board w.as only side-stepping the issue, and could not get away from the tact that it had given an undertaking. The Paeroai people had played their part generously and well, and had complied with everything asked of them. The board should be frank and say straight out that it did not intend to give Paeroa its hospitaL

The chairman interjected that fie had never said the hospital would not be built.

Mr C. W. Kennedy contended that the board had committed a breach of faith and was deliberately side-step-ping. The citizens of Paeroa were entitled to a straight-out answer, “Yes” or “No.” Mr Walton had quoted a clause which provided Tox - the closing of the hospital if it proved to be a. failure. At the present time the board was losing £looo' on the Thames maternity annexe, but the boaijd oi' the Paeroa people had nevex- suggested that it should be closed. Paeroa was, entitled to its hospital, and some of the board members were acting in a manifestly unfair manner. Mi- .Walton said he did not ask Mr Kennedy to accept his version of the matter. He suggested that Mr Kennedy should peruse former resolutions and correspondence on the subject and if necessax-y move an amendment. This closed the discussion .and the chairman proceeded to put the motion.

Mi- J. Rowe asked what the resolution was, and if an amendment had not been moved.

The chairman replied that there was no amendment, and the resolution was on the lines moved by Mr Walton. Mi- A. R. Robinson objected to the way Mr Rowe’s question had been answered.

Mr Brenan said he did not possess the ability to move an amendment to a resolution that was ej deliberate

side-step. On the motion being put it was supported by Messrs Danby, Walton, Parfitt, Lange, and the chairman, while Messrs Brenan, Robinson, Kennedy, Hall, and Rowe voted against. Ths resolution was declared carried on the casting vote of the chairman.