THE RAHOTU CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 159, 14 October 1910, Page 7

THE RAHOTU CASE.

THE SCARLATINA PROSECUTION. In the 'Magistrate's Court yesterday morning Mr. 11. S. Fitzherbert, S.M., <le- : livered his judgment in the case in which ! the Public Health Department proceeded 1 against A. J'. Chapman, of Rahotu, on ■ charges of 1. ving failed to notify the Department .hat his two children were ' suffering from scarlet fever. It was ad- ■ mitted, and proved, at the hearing last ; week tli.it Chapman had notified the ex- • istence of scarlet fever in his house, but ' Mr. T. S. Weston, for the Crown, sub- > ! ■ 1 -1 ■

mitted that a separate notice was required in each case of the sickness. This view was opposed by Mr. Quilliam, who appeared for the defendant, he contending that it wag quite sufficient that the authorities should have prompt notice of the existence of the disease on any premises. His Worship said that, in the absence of any authorities quoted on the matter, he would reserve the point. In announcing his decision yesterday morning, His Worship quoted from the Interpretation Act to show that words importing the singular must be held to include the plural and thus "any person" ift the clause commencing "where any person is found to be sick" became "any person or persons." Any notice which would suffice for a "person" would suffice for any number of persons if they were all ill on the same day, and in this case it was shown that the defendant became aware on the one day that several inmates of his house either were suffering from scarlet fever or that they might reasonably be suspected of having the disease. One notice, then, would be quite sufficient, and one notice had been given. He did not think it was the intention of the Legislature that a separate notice should be sent in respect to each person if all were ill on the same day, but the position might be different if someone became ill a week after the first notice. With regard to the clause providing for the notice to be 'in the form given in the schedule to the Act, he was of opinion that the word "shall" here was merely directory and not mandatory that a particular form should be used. It was not, he thought, reasonable to expect that every farmer or householder who might have scarlet fever in his house would have a copy of the Act by him. In coming to this cnclusion, His Worship said he had not been influenced by Dr. Frengley's statement that the Health Department would accept notices other than notices in the form provided by the Act. Of course, if they accepted such notice, they would not prosecute. But in deciding a case he must interpret the law as he found it, and not according to the usages of the Department. He had come to the conclusion that the notice given by Chapman on the day after his first ascertaining the nature of the disease was sufficient, and he dismissed the information. Mr. Weston asked His Worship if he would say whether his decision was based on the merits of the case, or on his reading of the Act. He explained that the Department might wish to appeal, with a view of testing section 25 of the Act. His Worship said he thought the point of the sufficiency of the notice given should be decided. He had his doubts, and had given the defendant the benefit of them.