The Kumara Times. Published Every Evening. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1885.

Kumara Times, Issue 2867, 10 December 1885, Page 2

The Kumara Times. Published Every Evening. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1885.

The decision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the appeal by Ziegler and others (members of the Kumara Hospital Committee) against the decision of the Resident Magistrate of Kumara, who awarded Dr. Monckton, the plaintiff, £72 and costs (£7 6s), having been published by us yesterday, we feel at liberty, now that the matter is from under the law, to make a few remarks upon the subject, which, from the time that the case came before the Resident Magistrate's Court at Kumara on the 10th July last, we have refrained from doing. The attempt to extract fiom the pockets of a speciallyselected number of men forming part of a public body who have given their time and money from year to year in the management and working of the noblest of all our charitable institutions was to us, and to a very large majority of the public who were not biassed for either party or their friends, a matter of deep humiliation and conconcern. But our sympathy for the members of the Hospital Committee so sought to be mulcted was not a little subdued by the miserable and impotent manner in which they allowed their case to be defended in Court. When the whole matter rested upon the words of a written agreement as between plaintiff and defendant, surely it was desirable on their part and behalf that evidence should have been produced in Court as to what had been the pre-viously-conceived and understood meaning and interpretation of the words of the agreement, aforetime by gentlemen similarly engaged and noting for the

of evidence was adduced. We are very far from being surprised at the appeal being allowed, and consider it would have been an everlasting blot on this community if Messrs Ziegler and others, for their share in the care and good management of our local institution, had had to pay this money. In as short a space as possible we propose to show how unjust it would have been bad the judgment of the Court been otherwise, that is, as far as facts could have been Bubmitted bad evidence been taken. Going back to 1879, we find that on the 2nd of June in that year, Dr. C. H. Huxtable, Esq., M.R.C.S , agreed with the Kumara Hospital Commitlee "to take or give six weeks' notice of termination of engagement as physician to the Kumara Hospital." And, on the 26th of July in the following year, as he then intended leaving New Zealand shortly, he tendered his lesiguation as surgeon to the Hospital "in terms of agreement," and left at the expiration of six weeks from that date. The appointment of Dr. Acheson, his succeasor was confirmed on the 9ih of September following, that is, within four weeks from the time Dr. Huxtable gave notice of his intention to leave. Then we find also, Dr. Acheson, within fifteen months from the date of his appointment, " owing to his health being seriously affected," tendered his resignation as surgeon to the institution, giving three months' notice of his intention so to do. His agreement with the Hospital Committee which was similarly woided to that of Dr. Monckton's "three months' notice on either side to terminate this agreement"—expired on the 28th February, 1881. Applications meantime bad been advertised, and Dr. Porter became appointed twenty days before the expiry of Dr. Acheson's three months' notice. The agreement between Dr. Porter and the Hospital Committee was worded the same as that of his predecessor Dr. Acheson, and his successor Dr. Monckton ; and we find that Dr. Porter also puts a similar construction upon his agreement as the Committee had always understood, and he gave three months' notice of his intention to leave. We say the Committee committed a very grave mistake in not adducing any of these facts as evidence of the meaning of their mutual agreements with their Hospital SurgeonSuperintendents. We do not blame the Resident Magistrate, Dr. Giles, for his decision in the matter. He had none of this nor even verbal evidence as to what had been understood by these previous surgeon-superintendents of the meaning of their agreements with the Committee. The case was so meagrely put before him that he had to go by the nearest case on record (Forgan v. Burke) to the one he had to deal with. The greatest judges have had their opinions on points of law overruled, and that this was no easy point is shown -by the fact that the Chief Justice has taken several weeks to consider it. In fact, the recorded cases cannot be made to agree except by hair-splitting. If there had been no cases at all to perplex the question, or if only one tittle of evidence had been adduced by defendants, we have no hesitation in spying that the decision of Dr. Giles in the R.M. Court would have been in favour of the Committeemen. Of this any one must have been convinced who read his lengthy and impartial judgment in the case. The decision of the Chief Justice has turned in this case entirely upon the difference between the words "three months' notice requi>ed on each side" and " three months' notice on either side to terminate the agreement." This is a very line distinction, and a Resident Magistrate's Court could hardly take upon itself to draw it. We think it ia well, therefore, that judgment has gone in the direction in which it unquestionably would have done had evidence been adduced before the R.M. So much for the agreement. As to the merits or demeiits of the motives which actuated Dr. Monckton to wreak hii vengeance for dismissal on certain members of the Hospital Committee,

we <!o not need to dwell. Many months ago we expressed the opinion that the immediate cause of notice of dismissal did not warrant such an extreme course being taken with a gentleman who was so attentive and painstaking to his duty, and who had a family in the place for whom the highest respect was commanded and shown. But if the Committee erred in this respect, they have been subjected to the humiliating position of being defendants before two tribunals. The | inquiry instituted by the Government on the 7th of August last into the circumstances which attended the appointment of Dr. Monckton and the termination of his engagement showed there were ample reasons for the Committee dispensing with his services. No employer with any respect for himself would have tolerated such treatment as the Committee were subjected to for one week ; and the report of the Commissioners, Dr. Giles and Major Keddel), R.Ms., plainly showed that the Committee had justifiable grounds for dismissing him. The action of the Government in all these matters and towards the Hospital Committee generally has been most mean and contemptible. Instead of taking part with the local governing body in the upright and straightforward course they have all along pursued, Ministers have listened and yielded to the advice and entreaties of private individuals and communications. The Hospital Committee, elected and mainly supported by local contributions had a perfect right to have had their actions defended in Court out of the Hospital funds. Yet, because the Government were afraid this would be done, it withheld two quarters' due subsidies until such time they were satisfied it would not be. Even when the Report of the Commissioners referred to had been sent in to the Government, Ministers had not the courtesy to communicate to the Hospital Committee the result; and it was only through the columns of this journal that they had the satisfaction of inferring from the Report that their action in dismissing Dr. Monckton was warranted and must be approved of. What was the inquiry for? It could only have benefitted Dr. Monckton if it had resulted in his favour, in showing perhaps that he would have had a good x case for an action for damages against the Committee. Thus the Government stepped in to aid out of the public funds ,a private individual against a local public body who had the control of a charitable institution which, as we have previously stated, is locally supported and controlled in a manner second to no other in the colony. In short, when the Committee thought the time was come when in the interests of the institution and the public generally they should exercise their prerogative, and give three months' notice to their medical officer to dispense with his services, the Government steps in at the public expense to defend him !