DISTRIEUTION OF CHARITABLE AID.

Otago Witness, Issue 2814, 19 February 1908, Page 16

DISTRIEUTION OF CHARITABLE AID.

BENEVOLENT TRUSTEES" SPHERE QF ACTION.

' In the Supreme Court on the 12th Mr Jusiice Williams had before him an application, for an order declaring that the" Charitable- Aid Board -has the general control Over the distribution of charitable aid Jwithin the United district of Central. Qta«Os» Shiapaka, and Otago, and that it was un{powered to specify the parts of the district within which the Benevolent Institution is 'to distribute ohartable aid. -: Sir J. H". Hoskins, K.C., with Mr C. G. 'White, for the plaintiff, the United Dis•triots of Central Otago, Tuapeka, and Otago -Charitable Aid Board; Mr J. Cook for the defendant, the Benevolent Institution contributors. i The statement of claim set out that rhe -plaintiff," on March 31, 1886, being of ppinion that it was neither expedient nor i desirable that oharitable aid should be ad- [ ministered by the plaintiff direct to mdi I gent persons, passed a resolution that all (applications for relief should be referred to the committee of the Benevolent Institution; on May 16, 1907, the plaintiff passed p. resolution rescinding the resolution ; on i «Tune 20, 1907, the plaintiff passed a resolution to the following effect: — "That Manio*oto, Waihemo, Clutha,. and Bruce Counties distribute their own charitable aid ; that iCPu*peka, Waikouaiti, Taieri, and Vincent itjoxmttes distribute their own charitable aid [ithrough th© board; and that the Benevolent Trustee* be asked to distribute obaritiable aid in Dunedin and .suburbs." On !July 1, 1907, the plaintiff wrote to the 'defendant requesting the defendant to coni *inne lo distribute charitable aid within IDunedin and suburbs, including Port Chaltners, West Harbour, Bay Town, Portofoello, Peninsula, and Tomahawk Koad •Boards; and on July 17, 1907, the de- • fendant intimated to the plaintiff that the 1 distribution of charitable aid throughout - the district had been vested in, the defendant | on the incorporation of the defendant as a, ', »eparate institution, and the defendant reluaed to confine its administration of ohariti able aid to the particular districts mentioned. The plaintiff claimed that , the1 general control of the distribution of charitable aid within the "united district ' was Tested in the plaintiff, and" that only the management and 'control of the Benevolent v Institution was vested in the defendant and th»t the plaintiff was acting within its . powers in passing the resolution limiting the Institution's. powers for Dunedin^ and -suburbs. • - - M The defendant admitted that all .J-pph-i 'cations for relief had been dealt with by, it up to May 16. 1907, but such apnlicauois i ihad not been dealt with in pursuance of f «ny resolution passed by the plaintiff, but ■ in the general courser of administrat ion by it of charitable aid throughout the united -districts of Central Otago, Tuapeka, ond Otago, which devolved upon it under the following circumetanoee :— A charitable institution, known ac " The Otago Bene\o'i nt Institution," v.-at> founded jn Dunedin in 1862 for the puipcee of relieving fhc aged, infirm, disabled, and destitute of all <tpinLs *ad nations, and for affording them ir.edu al JTelief and for ?dministeriii£r to them tlie

comforts of religion; and for carrying into ; effect these objects a site (the present site iof the Otago Benevolent Institution at Caversham) was acquired, and a suitable building was erected thereon. The funds for the purchase of the site and the erection of the building, and for the maintenance of the said institution, were originally raised by public subscription and voluntary contribution, but later on the moneys dej rived from these sources were supplemented | first by annual subsidies from the local I bodies, and latterly from the General Government, and the funds »o raised and I provided were administered by a commit' cc elected by the subscribers, and applied both in the maintenance of the institution and in affording out-door relief to the aßecf, ! infirm, and needy throughout the district | now represented by the uniied districts of i Central Otago, Tuapeka, and Otago. Tho Otago Benevolent Institution continued to exist as a voluntary institution up to the time where " The Hospitals and Charitable Institutions Act, 1885," came < into force, .and it was then incorporated as a separate institution under that act by the title of " The Otago Benevolent Institution Contributors." Since its incorporation the defendant institution has continued to manage and control the institution at Caversham, and to administer charitable aid and out-door relief throughout the district represented by the united districts of Central Otaso, Tuapeka, and Otago. The defendant claimed that all the powers and authorities of the plaintiff board in respect of the management of the Otago Benevolent Institution, including the distribution of charitable aid throughout tbo whole of the district representing the united districts of Central Otago, Tuapeka, and Otago were, on the incorporation of the defendant institution by virtue of section 56 of " The Hospitals and Oharitable Institutions Act, 1885," transferred to and vested in the defendant, and that the defendant institution was the proper body to administer charitable aid throughout the whole of the' district. An affidavit by Alfred Clulee, who has been secretary to the Benevolenc Institution since 1883, was also filed. The following is a summary of it: — The Otago Benevolent Institution was founded as a charitable institution in Dunedin in 1862 by the late Alfred Chatham Strode, St. j John Branigan, and Richard Bowden Martin, with the aid of volunary contributions, of themselves and others, for the purpose of relieving the aged infirm, disLabled and destitute, of all creeds and ! rations, and for affording them medical . relief and for administering to them the ! comforts of religion. The institution was ; managed by a committee of management I elected annually from the life governors and members. The funds administered by j the committee originally consisted of I voluntary contributions, subscriptions, and donations, augmented by grants from the ! P'rorinoial Council of the Province of Otago, and assistance was afforded to the aged infirm, disabled, and destitute throughout the said province in the shape of out--door relief. In 1865 the site of the present asylum at Caversham was purchased by the committee, and in the following year one m ing of the present building was erected. T>o funds for the erection of the said v. ing wcro derived partly from voluntary

contributions and partly from grants from the Provincial Government. After the erection and equipment of the asylum at Cavereham the committee continued, besides maintaining the asylum, to administer outdoor relief to the needy. The funds for the maintenance of the asylum and the outdoor relief for the years 1867 to 1878 were provided partly by subscriptions, donations, and collections, and partly by subsidies from the Provincial Government ; and for the years 1879 to 1885' the funds were provided partly by subscriptions, donations, 'and collections, and partly by subsidies from the General Government. The reports of the committee show that outdoor relief was administered to residents in the oountry as well as to residents in town. After the incorporation the institution oorttinued to manage and control the asylum at Caversham, and to administer charitable aid and outdoor relief throughout the district at first represented by the Otago Charitable Aid Board, and subsequently by the united districts of Central Otago, Tuapeka, and Otago Charitable Aid Board. The funds required for these purposes were provided by the Otago Charitable Aid Board or by the united districts of Central Otago, Tuapeka, and Otago Charitable Aid Board, and the right of the defendant institution to administer and control the administration and distribution of charitable aid and outdoor relief throughout the whole of the respective districts from which the funds were provided was never questioned until the receipt by the defendant .institution of the board's letter of the l«t July, 1907. Mr Hosking, K.C., sa^id the whole of the facts appeared from the pleading and Mr Clulee's affidavit. The real point at iseufe was whether the •'board might, in regard to charitable aid, confie the operations of the Benevolent Institutions to any particular area, especially with regard to outdoor relief. In March, 1886, the plaintiff, being of opinion that it was neither expedient nor desirable that charitable ajd should be administered by the plaintiff direct to indigent persons, passed a resolution that, all applications for relief should Ibe referred to the committee of the ! Benevolent Institution. Under that resolu- | tion the board became simply a conduit I pipe for the transmission of the funds from the Government to rhe Benevolent Institution, and the institution administered the whole of the oharitable aid. It left the Charitable Aid Board with practically nothine whatever to do except, to pass the requisitions of the Benevolent Institution for money. That resolution continued operative, and was acted on until the 16th May. 1907. when it was rescinded by the plaintiff. The cause of rescinding the resolution was this : Several of the local bodies in the country districts — counties in particular — thought they should have a more direct hand in the administration of charitable aid. and it was in consequence of reoresentatione on their behalf that the Charitable Aid Board thought that a new departure should be taken. Therefore-, on the 20th June, 1907. the plaintiff naseed the following resolution : — " That Maniototo. Waihemo. Clutha. and Bruce Counties distribute thp-ir own charitable »'fl: that Tuaneka Waikoiwiti. Tiieri, a.ruj Vincent Counties distribute their own

charitable aid through the board; and that the Benevolent Trustees be asked to distribute charitable aid in Dunedin and suburbs." It was this resolution that the defendant objected to. Learned counsel went on to refer lo the relative positions of the two bodies and to the powers cf the board. Sections 12 and 13 of the Hospitals and Charitable Institutions Act of 1885 vested exclusively in the board the control of the distribution of charitable add, and under seotion 18 the board was to take all necessary* eteps to provide funds for the maintenance of any institution vested in it or under its control. By section 35 the board might apply any of the moneys in its hands from time to time in such proportions as it thought fit towards the erection and maintenance of buildings, etc., and in the maintenance or relief, or in contributing to the maintenance or relief, of indigent and sick_ people. That purpose of the board was quite commensurate with all that could be done in the way of oharitable aid by the Benevolent Institution. The object of the institution, under its rules, was to relieve " the aged, infirm, disabled, and destitute of all creeds and nations, and for affording them medical relic*, and for administering to them the comforts of religion." Then, under section 31, the board might establish new hospitals or branch hospitals. That power was important in this connection : it showed the competence of the board to have two or more institutions within the district. If the defendant said it would relieve <jver the whole district they would find a conflict between the two or more institutions which the board itself might set up. Under subclause 10 of section 62 the powers of the Charitable Aid Board came to be delegated to the Benevolent Institution. The plaintiff dad not pretend that it had power to make by-laws in respect of the Benevolent Institution, but inasmuch as it had control of the administration of charitable aid throughout the district, it necessarily had some powe~r of regulation, and although that regulation might not be effected by means of by-laws, it would have to be effected in the only other way that a public body could make by-iaw6, and that was by resolution. So that, whether the_ plaintiff had power to make a by-law or not" with regard to the question; there was necessarily implied, by virtue of the general clause giving it control, power to regulate the institution by means of resolution. Learned counsel also dealt with sections 25 and 29 of the act of 1886. Section 25 provided that a board might divide the district under its jurisdiction into subdivisions. There was clear power for the board to define the area of operations within which any separate institution might wish to exe J' I cisc its powers. It was under section 29 that a resolution was passed enabling the local authorities— *he several counties named — to themselves distribute the chantable aid instead of being, as heretofore, merely contributors of so much money to the board, which in turn passed over to the Benevolent Institution all the money it required for out-door relief. The position was this : according to the affidavit of Mr Clulee the Benevolent Institution was"" an asylum. The operations of the trustees had been the administration of that asylum, plus the voluntarily-undertaken duties of ' admiaiitering charitable aid throughout the

| whole of the district as the agent of the j board, and it was the latter part of the duties of the institution that the plaintiff I wished to have the pronouncement of the ( court upon. The plaintiff submitted, if the | other side contended that at the incorporation it was vested with all the powers it previously possessed— with the power of relieving the aged, infirm, disabled, and ! destitute of all creeds and nations and ' affording medical relief, — that was a power , that would be properly exercisaWe in any ; part of New Zealand, and world not be oonfined to any particular district. The Benevolent Institution, with rules staled so widely as its were, could justify the expenditure of its funds in charitable aid in any part of New Zealand, and plaintiff said that that should not be so. Mr Cook: Unfortunately we lave to relieve people from other parts of New Zealand. Mr Hosking (continuing/ said his argument was this: that a proper consideration of the act placed the whole control of the administration^ of charitable aid in the hands of the board, and that the board . necessarily had power to limit the area of ! operations of any particular institution; for 1 if not, where there were two or more institutions conflict might arise, and there would be danger of overlapping in regard to the administration of charitable aid. It might happen that the same person would be drawing twice. It was clear, he submitted, that the claim of the defendant \vas untenable. Mt Cook said it was unfortunate that this 'difficulty should have occurred' between these two bodies, which had been working harmoniously now for a quarter of a oentury. The younger institution seemed to think, howex-er, that it was necessary to make changes in the mode of the administration of outdoor relief, and ' the older institution was of opinion that rho proposed changes would hamper it in administering relief in the district in which the largest expenditure had to be made, and as matters threatened to come to a deadlock, it was thought better that an appeal should be made to the court to define l the duties and powers of the two institutions in regard to the administration o? outdoor relief. There was a danger of overlapping, and there were other difficulties that the trustees foresaw, and therefore they were unwilling to administer relief in a portion of the district only, unless the court found that it was their" duty to do so. Learned counsel traced the career of the Benevolent Institution. The objects of the institution in the first place were wide. They were to administer, relief to the aged, needy, and infirm, and the very name of the institution, he submitted — the Otago Benevolent Institution, — showed that it was intended that it should confine its operations to the then province of Otago. The building of the asylum was a. secondary consideration. Up to the time of the passing of the Incorporation Act the institution was supported largely br voluntary contributions, assisted by subsidy from time to time of one Government or another, but not of any particular local body This, _ however, was found to be * rather precarious means of raising funds for what was fast becoming a permanent charge on the community, and therefore, h« presumed, the *ot was passed under

which the moneys required were raised fey a form of taxation. As for the law on the subject, he contended that separate ■ institutions were protected from interference by the board before the act gave the board control ot er the distribution of charitable aid. t The meaning of the words . " distribution of charitable aid "- coming before any reference to hospitals and so forth, must mean "allocation,*^ because the board had to provide funds for the k separate institutions and the hospitals, and "distribution" could not mean that it . was to administer the charitable aid, but . that it was to allocate the sums which it raised for the purposes of charitable aid. • J3e submitted that on the incorporation of the institution the District Board ceased to haye — if it ever had — any authority or power over,! the Benevolent Institution *»t all. "Learned counsel also drew attention to sub-section 10 of section 63. under which power was given to afford relief by distributing medicine or outdoor relief, and argued that it was evidently the intention -jof the Legislature in having separate in"'lstitutions incorporated, not that their functions should be confined to the asylums placed under their control, but to- give >outdoor relief, because that was a special made for the purpose. Under the T "iact of 1885 nothing was said about the , "^subdivision of districts for the purpose of distributing charitable aid. It was not ./until the following year that clauses 25 and 29 were passed, and these -clauses, he subonly applied to cases in which a institution with the entire control "of outdoor relief did not exist. They, did -j?oiganJsly<Kto ptseg -where the, admirfistrati 3n "of *%ha¥itat)le "aid wa"s being carried on by . the board itself. Section 29 said that the board _ might appoint one or more local authorities to collect and distribute charitable aid, but that was governed by the " • fact that it would only apply to cases in which there was no separate institution which claimed the administering of charitable aid.' The effect of section 29, if his friend's contention regarding it was correct, would be that the District Board had no right to allow the Otago Benevolent Institution, or any other ' institution within its district, to administer charitable aid, and that was one of the questions upon which the trustees would like the opinion of the court — whether, in the event of his Honor holding that the administration of charitable a : d rested entirely with the District Board throughout the district, the trustees had any right to take upon themselves the administration, even at the request of the board, for the distribution of charitable aid. Either the trustees had a right to administer charitable aid or they had not, and if their right to administrate throughout* the country was to be denied, they would like to know whether they had any right to undertake even the duties the District Board now sought to cast ■Upon "them. His Honor : I think it is questionable, because the money to be admin-stered is public money, and you can only administer public money in accordance with the statute. ■ Mr Cook (continuing) said, in regard to any 1 institutions supported by the board, they would not come under the provisions of the act in regard to separate institutions at all. A separate institution could only ' be brought into existence in the mode prescribed by the- act, and that was before November 15, 1886- Since that date no separate institutions could come into existence, so Jhat separate institutions started by tte District Board since that date would "be under the control of the District Board, and would be liable ta be closed up or continued as the board thought fit. Mr Hosking, X.C.. replied, after which his Honor reserved his judgment.