BENEVOLENT INSTITUTIONS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2892, 18 August 1909, Page 14

BENEVOLENT INSTITUTIONS.

| THE COMPULSORY BATH. (Fbom Oxm Own Cohbespondent.) AUCKLAND, August 9. I A judgment of importance to benevolent institutions was given by Mr E. C. Cutten, S.M., to-day in the case of La\* v. Bannerman, a claim of £10, damages for assault. Plaintiff is an inmate of th< Costley Home, and defendant, the managei of the institution, forcibly gave him a bath. " There is no difficulty about the law," said his Worship. "In law the manage! was clearly wrong. The manager says, however, that under the by-laws of th« institution the inmates are required tc have a bath ; that on the day appointed for bathing plaintiff refused* to take a bath and that in the circumstances of the case he was justified in the interests oi the institution, and of the plaintiff himself, in compelling the plaintiff- to take a 'bath. He therefore asks that the damages, if any, be merely nominal. Prom the evidence put before me I am led to conclude that the fault in the first instance lay with the plaintiff. When requested by a new attendant, who did not know t»he individual habits of the inmates, to take a bath, instead of explaining that he regularly took Ms bath, he got annoyed and refused, using rude and objectionable language. I am satisfied, too, that no more force was used than was necessary to give plaintiff the bath, and that the plaintiff suffered no harm. On, tie other hand., the defendant now admits that had he been fully aware of the circumstances he would not have compelled the plaintiff to take a bath. He was not aware that plaintiff took a bath regularly, and he did not ascertain the fact before giving him the batiu The plaintiff had refused *o take a bath. He thought from his appearance that he needed a bath, and he thought it necessary for the maintenance of discipline to compel him to have a bath, and the defendant was under the impression that he had authority to do so under the bylaws of the institution. The by-law gives the manager no such authority. It is the business of the manager of such an institution to keep himself fully informed of his powers and duties, and he is in fault if he does not do so. He had no excuse in this case. The by-laws give no authority to the- manager to compulsorily bath the inßoat.es, and there were no special ■circumstances to justify the manager's action. The position, therefore, amounts to this : The manager practically admits now that he would not have acted as he did if he 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, even if the circumstances were as he thought them, he would still have been acting without authority in doing as he did, and that he did not know he was wrong was due to his own default m not properly mformino- 'himself as to his powers and duties I assess the damages at £5." Judgment was entered for plaintiff accordingly.