SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume XLVIII, Issue 7881, 4 June 1891, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS IN BANCp.

Wednesday, Junk 3. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Denniston.) Waitaki Hospital and Charitable Aid Board (appellant) v South Canterbury Hospital and Charitable Aid Board (respondent). Mr Cohen appeared for the appellant, and Mr Joynt for the respondent. On the 3rd September last the Resident Magistrate at Timaru gave judgment for 4J9 2s 6d, with costs, for the South Canterbury Charitable Aid Board (plaintiff) v the Waitaki Charitable Aid Board (defendant). The claim was for the maintenance of one Thomas Dodds in the Timaru Hospital, and for the supply of rations to his wife and family during the time he was in the hospital. Dodds went from Oamaru to Timaru on the 26th October, 1889, and on the llth April, 1890, was received into the Timaru Hospital, where he remained until the 15th May, 1890, on which day he died. The case turned upon the construction of the 74th section of the Act, which was interpreted—to get at the intention of the Legislature—by the Resident Magistrate to mean that the six months referred to was a full period' of six months at least which must have been spent in the district to be charged next before coming into .the relieving district and institution, so that the person entered the institution before he had resided six months in the district. His Honor gave judgment as under :— Section 74 of the Hospitals and Charitable Institutions Act, 1885, is as follows *.—" If an institution under the Act afford relief to any person coming from beyond the contributing district in which such institution is situated, it shall be lawful fbr the Trustrees or Board having the control of the institution affording relief to recover from the Board of the district from which such person came the entire cost of such relief, provided that the person has resided in the last-mentioned district at least six months next before he entered the institution from which he obtained relief." These words, used in their grammatical sense, have a plain meaning. It is said, however, that this meaning would lead to! such consequences that a different construction must be put on them in order to arrive at what it is saiji must be the intention of the Legislature. That intention is, it is said, thai any institution affording relief to any person within six months after Buch person | having come to reside in the district in! which such institution is situated, shall be able to recover the cost of such relief from the Board of the district from which such person came into the relieving district, provided such person has lived continuously in the former district at least six months before coming into the relieving district. It is obvious that to give the section this meaning the words "at least six months next before he entered the institution fiom which he obtained relief" must be read "at least six months before he entered the district in which the institution, from which he obtained relief, is situated." Even if the result of reading the section naturally were, as suggested, to make it practically inoperative, I do not think I should be justified, in the absence of any indication in the rest of the Act, to do such violence to the language as would be required to give it the meaning put on it by the counsel for the respondent, merely because I thought that such was the probable intention of the legislature. There is, however, a limited effect which may be fiven to the section in its natural meaning. t would meet the case of persons sent direct from one district, where they'were receiving relief, to another district from which they would, from their indigent con. dition, at once require to receive relief. Such cases would be infrequent, but not im possible. As against the suggested construction that the intention of the legislature was to create a species of " settlement" against the last district in which a person receiving relief had resided for six months, there is the fact that by the terms of the section the right to recover is given ouly against the district from which the person obtaining relief last came. Should he not have resided in such district six months no right exists against it, nor against any other district in which he may have previously resided for six months. Although lam not surprised-at the/decision the Magistrate arrived at, I think the appeal must be allowed, costs J5lO 10s. John Parish (trustee of the will of the late William Parish) v Jacob Parish (son of William Parish) and J. M. Batham.

This was an action brought by the trustee of the will of the late William Parish, who died in 1878, against Jacob Parish, to prevent him from bringing a piece of land under the Land Transfer Act in his own name.

Mr Harper for MrWynn-Williams, moved for judgment for the plaintiff, on the finding of a jury on the first two issues of the case, to prevent defendant from bringing under the Land Transfer Act, in his own name, a section of land on which he had lived during the lifetime of his father, but which had not been Conveyed to him. Mr Stringer, with him Mr Deacon, moved for judgment for the defendant on the finding of the jury in the second issue. After hearing argument, His Honor reserved judgment.