THE HOSPITAL AND CHARITABLE AID LITIGATION.

Waikato Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 2347, 26 July 1887, Page 3

THE HOSPITAL AND CHARITABLE AID LITIGATION.

' Tm-; following (■ '[>oi tof tho case, District of Auckland 11<j»|iit;il and ( jliin itabU; Aid Hoard v. U'aipa County Council, as it came I■cfon: the Court of Appeal at Wellington, I,.is only just come to hand, and though soim-nhat late in the day we print it for general information : Tit.-pay, .May IT. Tim north of Aia-khtml and the Auckland districts were constituted hospital districts uinlcr the Hospital and Charitable Institution.. Ail, ISso. D.V the same Act these (1: lets were constituted united districts. Tic' County "f Waipn formed part of the former district. I’.y the ann-mling Act of l.ssil, section lid, iho Cnited Hoard was dissolved, and the County of Waipa, with ottwr Counties, was constituted a district as if it had never formed part of tin united district. Section 10 of the amem.ing Act ainenilril the schedule to the principal Act by omitting the word U'aipa from the description of the Auckland district, and inserting in the schedule a description of the new district of U'aipa. Section HU was deelan-d not to come in force till April Ist, ISS7, but there was no postponement of section 10. In .March, ISStJ, the Auckland District Hoard allocated the proportions the contributing bodies were to pay for tbe year ending the Hist .March, 18.57, ami gave cine notice, but mi sub-division of tlic district under section 22 was ever made. Tbe Waipa County Council refused to pay. Tins action was instituted to compel payment. Tiio evidence was taken before Mr Justice Ward, and the pleadings and evidence put in the form of a special case, and removed to tile Court of Appeal, Mr Chapman for tiio plaintiff hoard. The first question arises on the contention that the plaintiff board has no corporate existence. It is suggested that, an integral part being removed, tiio corporation is dissolved. K.V.-37, Ji. 211. Dot no irtegral part of this corporation is lost. Tiio rest is that the corporation can exercise its functions without the member elected by the Waipa County Council. Section -10 only amends the schedule to the principal Act, and must be read as auxilliary to section 30. The. allocation of contributions can be made in two ways, under sections 21, and 23, or under section 22. The word “may” in section 22 imparts a discretion. The draftsman of the Act knew how to make a clause directory or imperative, as is shown by his use of the word “shall” in sections 21 and 23, and “may” in section 22. The sub-division is only fm- tiie sake of convenience, and, if inconvenient, may bo omitted. Tim use of the words “district or sub-division ” in section 23 shows that both sub-divided and uii.snbiiivi.led districts may exist. .Doan v. Crcon, S I’. D., SO, Davis v. Kvans, I) n. H.i)., 213, Julius v. Lord i’ishnp of Oxford, ."i, App. Gas., 203.

The Court adjourned till 10.30 to-day (Wednesday). Wkd.vksday, May 18.

Argument in this case was resinned by Mr Hell on behalf of the defendant. Mr Chapman’* argument is the first suggestion, that Section -10 did not constitute the Waikato Hoard. A contrary view was taken by the Government, as the Governor appointed an election for the 17th November, 1880, so that the board has been assumed to exist, and, if rightly, wo shall have to pay twice over. The effect of Section ISO is simply to disunite United Hoards and to restore to the component parts the functions given 'to the United Hoards. The Waikato Hoard must bo taken as if it had been originally constituted by the Act of ISSfi. The effect of taking a way nne of tlu» constituent parts of thn Auckland Hoard was that the Auckland Hoard ceased to exist for (he purpose of any function to be performed within the Waipa County. Guardians of Woodbridgo v. Guardians of Hour .of Collides ;18 L. t.Q.H. 120: Queen v. Durbin IS Q. H. 071: Marl of Shrewsbury v. Scott 1 C.H.N.S, the right to the money was subject to a condition that it was to be expended in our district; that cannot bo dona now. The vested interest in the money was veiled in a different board from that now claiming it. Under section 211 of the Act of 1885 the board was bound was bound to subdivide the district; “hereinafter” in section 21 refers to section 22 ; “therein" in section 22, shows that the board was bound to have institutions in each district. R. V. by tiio commissioners Id Q, H. loll; Howell v. London Dock Company 8 M and H. 212 ; Hallctt v Hallett 7 M. and H 312, A eantrilmtnry local authority is defined to bo a council of a county, section •(. Hero it is the corporate body rated. Mr Chapman in reply : No part of the corporate body is removed. Part of the district is taken away, but all the members of the board remain, the expression ‘council’ is simply miming the governing part of the corporate body for the whole. Prendergaat, C.J ; The question is whether the liability, which existed immediately on the allocation ceased to he a liability on the passing of the Act of 188(1. Conceding that the Waikato district became a district on the passing of the Act of ISBO, did the liability cease? First, it is said that the coriyirato body of the Auckland district ceased to bo a corporation so far as the hearing of their liability was concorned. I am unable to see on iv hat principle that contention can bo sanctioned. If it was a corporals body it remained so, and the _ mere removing of the Waikato and Waipa districts could have no effect than withdrawing that part from thn jurisdiction of the Auckland Hoard. It did not dissolve life corporate hotly. For that reason X think the contention that the plaintiff cannot recover most bo decided against the defendant. As to the other question, whether the Auckland Hoard ceased to have power to expend money in Waipa, I am unable to say that is so ; the facts may show one way nr the other. There is nothing in the Act to show that liability is to cease. As to sub-division, the reasonable construction is that subdivision is discretionary. That part of a district should support particular institutions and the rest exempted, there is nothing in She Act or in reason to make it necessary that there should be a subdivision in ovary case. As to the last pointy they have described the corporate body instead of the contributory authority -the body that owns the fund instead of allocating tn the county council, which has charge of the fund. County council is certainly local authority. Hilt to my mind the debt is to bo recovered from local authority. I think the plaintiff is entitled to judgment. Richmond, J. As to section 22 it seems to have been considered some districts might conveniently bo subdivided. Hut these most ho among eases in which there is only one hospital, and in these cases subdivision of Ihe districts would bo unnecessary. 1 think, therefore, section 22 gives a discretionary power. Williams, J. ; I agree with the reasons given by his Honor the Chief .fostice for judgment. It seems to mo that the 28th section of the Act of 1885 gave Auckland district a right of action against the county of Waipa for the amount of its contribution. I don’t think it can bo successfully contended that the effect of the Act of 1880 was to take away the right of action from the Auckland directors so to alter its corporate capacity as to affect existing rights, I can see no distinction between this right of action from any other which the corporation might have had. There is nothing in the Amendment Act, intended to take away any rights of action from the corporation. It by no moans necessarily follows that the result of such construction would ho to operate unjustly. It might do so. Hut any other construction might be an exceedingly unfair one if the Auckland district had incurred liabilities on faith of receiving this contribution, The Act is very complicated, hut upon the whole j have no doubt that the conclusion we have arrived nt is the correct one. Judgment to be entered in Supreme Court for amount claimed and costs. Plaintiff to have costs in this court.