CHARITABLE AID. THE LIABILITIES OF CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS. DUNEDIN, NOV. 1.

Te Aroha News, Volume VI, Issue 313, 3 November 1888, Page 5

CHARITABLE AID. THE LIABILITIES OF CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS. DUNEDIN, NOV. 1.

At yesterday's sitting of the R.M. Court Mr Carew being on the Bench, the Otago Benevolent Institution sned the South Canterbury Charitable Aid Board for £21 10s for groceries and meat supplied fco Maggie Sharp from the Ist December, 1887, to the 27th September, 1888, fortythree weeks, at 10s per week. The plaintiffs were represented by Mr George Cook, and Sir R. Stout (instructed by Messrs Perry and Perry, of Timaru) appeared for the defendants, who paid £7 12s into Court. The farts were practically admitted. Mr Cool; said that there was nothing in the evidence to show that this young woman had the acquired settlement in Oamaru or iv any other place ; but, supposing she had applied at Oamaru and had got relief there ior six months, and then gone to Timaru, the Timaru Board would have claimed on the Oamaru Board, and if she had then come down here, which of the two Boards, Oamaru or Timaru, would the Dunedm Board have claimed against ? This war not quibe clear under ,the Act. So far as he could see, she might have travelled the colony from Auckland to the Bluff and they might go on ad infinitum with the reckoning:* between the different boards. But as a matter of fact &he did not get relict at Oamaru, so there was no need to say anything in reference to that matter. Sir R. Stout said the points he was instructed m were these :—(1): — (1) What was meant by refcidence under the 74th section? {U) What was meant by six monthy next betore'! (3) What was the meaning of the words at the end oi section 24, "He (or she) entered the institution ?" The contention of the South Canterbury Board had been this: (1) That so far as residence was concerned, "residence" here must mean residence, not in receipt of relief, and that, consequently, so far as Maggie Sharp was concerned, she being in receipt of relief all the while Bhe was iv Timaru district, or in receipt by her children, which was the same as by herself if she was bound to maintain them, the district) was not liable. On this account the residence spoken of in the account must be lesidence such ah would be termed a free residence, and not residence in a " charitable institution." That was not the meaning of " residence "in section 74. In fact, what " residence "' in section 74 meant was the oame as residence was defined in England, where such laws were in force, and residence in a charitable institution could not be held to be residence in a district for the purpose of saddling that district. It would be absurd to say that the South Canterbury people were to be charged for maintenance for all time because they did not send her back to her own people at once. Therefore they said that the term "residence" must be considered as it was in England, namely, having reference to free residence. That was an important point which would have to be settled some day ; but he did not rely on it in this case, as hib second point would, he submitted, prove fatal to the other side. It was, however, as well to mention it now. Supposing this woman had been dischaiged here and had gone to Christchuich, could it be said that because she had been living here for six months - Otago was to be charged Avith her maintenance ? That showed the absurdity of it, but he did not rely on this part, as his third contention would be sufficient ; the words in section 74, " At least six months beioic,"' had been broken by one day ; she had not been living six months " next before." On that point there were judicial decisions. Five years was the English law of settlement, and it had been held that where a, person was away from a parish for a single night, even though he did not know that he had gone outside the bounds, but believed that he had not done so, that destroyed settlement. Even though he had been 12 years in the parish, that destroyed the 12 years' settlement, and threw him back on the birth settlement. Here, according to Mr Lough's evidence, Miss Sharp went to stop for two or three days at Mr Goodman's place at Cracrof t, which was in North Canterbury, and not the South Canterbury distaict. That was in 1887, in the month of May. Having stopped at Uoodman's place she broke her six mouths' settlement, and consequently the detenoants could not be charged. Theie were other casts to the same effect, to which he would refer His Y\ orship (cases quoted). This had also been decided in a question of bankruptcy as to what the four months' wages meant in the English statute. It taid "four months before tiling." They could not claim wages if there was a break of a day. He submitted that Miss Sharp broke her six months' residence by going to North Canterbury, and South Canterbury was not bound any further than this. His second point was fatal, and he was not bound to have paid anything into Court, but the South Canterbury Board considered it only honest to pay tor the six months after having given their word by their Chairman. The sum paid in was the lull balance due. He also submitted that under section 74 there was no " entering the institution.'' It was simply a case of dispensing out-door relief, but it was not necessary to argue that point because ho submitted that the other point was fatal. Mr Cook said there was this to be considered, that the children were there at all events. Sir R. Stout pointed out that there was no charge for the children. The money was given to the woman, not to the children. It was sufficient to read the plaint note to answer that point. The charge was for groceries and meat supplied to Maggie Sharp. Mr Cook said that all the cases mentioned turned on thelaw of settlement, butthere was nothing in the New Zealand Act about this law, and hence the case did not apply. When one looked at the whole scheme of the Act, he submitted that no such con stvuetion as that which had been attempted to be placed could be so placed on section 74 The object of che Act was to afford means of relief, and no one could get relief if that construction were allowed. Sir R. Stout said that his learned friend was wrong in saying that the cases he cited were all on the law of settJement. He (Sir R. Stout) had cited one under the Bankruptcy Act. His Worship intimated that he would reserve judgment.