DISPENSING OF CHARITABLE AID

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 102, 20 October 1911, Page 5

DISPENSING OF CHARITABLE AID

BOARDS AT LOGGERHEADS. By Telegraph—Press Association. Duiiodiii, Last Night, In the Magistrate's Court to-day, before. Mr. Widdowsou, S.M., the Otogo Hospital and Charitable Aid Board claimed from the Southland Hospital and Charitable Board £2l, being the amount expended by the Otago Board in providing duuitable aid for Mrs. J. W. Smith (Fairfax) and her family for 42 weeks, from November 14, 1010, to September 4, 1011, at 10s a week. The action was , taken under section 72 of the Hospitnl t and Charitable Institutions Act, 1909, which provides: "That when a person \ receives relief from or at the expense of a hospital and charitable aid board at any time before he has resided in the distiict of that board for one year immediately prior to the granting of that relief, the board may recover cost of relief so granted to that, person as a debt due _ ky the board in whose district he last resided for a period of two years at any time prior to the granting of that relief, whether he was still resident in that district or not at the time relief was granted." , .** Counsel for the plaintiff Board said! .• there was no agreement between the >,y boards; therefore the Court must hold \'' that what the plaintiff Board had done j was reasonable. When approached, the, \' t Southland Board wrote declining respon- J sibility, and saying the case was noti I one for charitable aid. On that date re« • lief was stopped. Later, however, it ';, was found necessary to continue relief, "*" notwithstanding the'refusal of the Southland Board, which also declined to allow '. the case to be sent to the Inspector- • V General for arbitration. Another matter had arisen. This was a question that there are two sons in the family, -}> who are deemed to be able to support '-,; the family. Tlie Otago Board considered , i that the Southland Board ought to take proceedings in that matter. , ; , Counsel for the defence said the South- '•* land Board defended the claim as a pro- f test against the haphazard and slipshod < methods of the Otago Board. He said payments made from time to time in-

eluded a number of payments en blocy §S and it was evident the Otago Board did Ml not consider the applicants at all. , |' Decision was reserved. ■, "'i