Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

A VACCINATION ORDER

AN INTERESTING DECISION. Per Press Association, Napier, December 10. Yesterday, the Magistrate, Air Brabant, gave a decision in a vaccination case against a school teacher named Macfarlaue. This was a case in which the defendant had applied for an exemption certilicate for his child on tne ground that he objected to vaccination. The application was refused, on the ground that the application did not show that defendant had a conscientious opinion that vaccination would be prejudicial to his ehilds health, but that he objected to vaccination in toto. The vaccination inspector, therefore, applied for an omer directing the defendant to cause the child to be vaccinated. The decision of the .Magistrate is interesting, as no previous decision had oeen given on this point. It was as follows;— - 'i am of opinion that the defendant has shown no sufficient cause why the child should not be vaccinated. Ido not think that the fact of the defendant having a conscientious objection now to Uiis chini | being vaccinated would be a 'sullicient cause' now, seeing that the defendant applied for a certilicate within the time lixed by law for such application and was refused, but even if the conscientious objection could be so considered, still the defendant has shown no cause, because the 'conscientious objection,' considered in the light of Lord Alverston's remarks, does .not exist. On defendant's own showing, his objection is to vaccination generally, and not to the vaccination of this particular child. In my opinion if the Statute had intended that a parent could obtain exemption by saying to the inspector that he objected to vaccination, and wouldn't have it done, it would have been made clear by the Statute itself. Ido not see my way to re--fuse the order asked for by the inspector, if the opponents of vaccination have any doubt as to the correctness of this decision, 1 hope they will carry the (question to the Higher Court,, and get it satisfactorily settled. The order for vaccination is accordingly made." ' I Leave to appeal was given.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19061217.2.11.5

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 81904, 17 December 1906, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
342

A VACCINATION ORDER Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 81904, 17 December 1906, Page 2

A VACCINATION ORDER Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 81904, 17 December 1906, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert