CHARITABLE AID.

Te Aroha News, Volume VI, Issue 320, 28 November 1888, Page 2

CHARITABLE AID.

The Act relating to charitable aid in New Zealand was conceived in folly and draughted in stupidity. Its author seems to have had very vague ideas as to what he intended to place on the Statute Book, and the draughtsman appears to have made confusion worse eonloundrd. The Act in question is the enfant terrible of that erstwhile Premier and AttorneyGeneral — Sir Eobert Stout. Being a lend ing lawyer, he oui»ht to have been abl<? to prepare a measure that would meet all the circumstances in a clear and intelligible manner. Yet this precious Act seems to have been designed to puzzle and perplex. Tlieie have been men bold enough indeed to assert that the father of the measnie was unable to advise as to I'o'v it would hpar in this, that, or the other case. Of the truth of this wo know nothing, but we should not be at all surprised to learn fehnt there was good foundation for tho statement. All over the colony we hear ot disputes as 'o the liability of this, that, or the other Charitpblo Aid B. ard in regard to the maintenance of moneyless men or women. There is just now an action pending by the Auckland Boar I against the Wanganui Board. A case of very crreat importance in regard to the responsibilities o\ the various Boaids was decided at the Dunedin Li.M.. Court ,)n Fndny. The Otngo Benevolent Trustees supd the vSouth Canterbury L hat it.ihle Aid Board, which ha« its headquarters in Timaru, for relief sjiveu to one Mi£>«ie Sim; p. The young worntin had been an inmate oi the Tinumi institution for six months or more, and slie went to Dunedin. Conespondoncf» took pin on, and the result of this was that the Otago institution afforded relief to Maqeiu Sharp. The Sonth Canterbuiy Board paid for her maintenance in Dnnedin for six months, and refused to go further, as they contended that she had failed to acquire settlement in Timaru. The K.M., Mr Carew, who is recognised as one of the most able magistrates in the colony, held that the argument, and, in fact, the whole case, was based upon the provisio requiring residence of six months within the district sought to be charged for relief : but he did not think that the author of the Act intended this meaning. His interpretation was that, to give a Board or trustee right to recover for relief afforded to a person coming frcra another district, the person mmt have I resided in that other district within six months of his or her first receiving relief from the plaintiff Board. This was, of course, the whole nux of the question. Mr Carew went on to remark that, according to his reading of the xVcfc, what will give a settlement is left to the interpretation of the word " reside," He interpreted this to mean the length of time that a person had been non-resident in a district. Non-residence in a district for six months prior to obtaining relief in another district took away all liability on the part of the former district for the maintenance of such person. In fact, the " six months" mentioned in the Act meant the latest period at which a person had resided in the district in question. As to "residence" meaning residing ivithout charitable aid, he held that that contention was incorrect, and ruled that residence applied to a pauper just as much as to a person who paid his or her own way. He gave judgment for the plaintiff for LI 3 18s, with costs L 3 11s 6d, in addition to L 7 12s paid into court. The effect of this decision is that whore a person goes from one district to another and gets charitable aid icithin six months of entering the latter district, the Board in the district from which he or she came is liable for tho cost, even though the person had only been resident in the former district as a pauper. This will, we think, be an " eye-opener ' to many members of Charitable Aid Boards, and will teach them to be exceedingly cautious in the matter of affording relief. — Rangitikei Advocate.