MCLEAN INSTITUTE.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13903, 30 November 1910, Page 4

MCLEAN INSTITUTE.

QUALIFICATIv.S'S FOR ADMISSION

An application was made yesterday, before- his Honour Mr Justice Chapman, for a declaratory judgment regarding a difficulty which has arisen in connection with tho consideration of applications for admission to the McLean Institute. Proceedings were by way of an originating summon, the plaintiffs being the' Trustees of the McLean Institute, nnd tho defendant the Attorney-General. Mr T. G. Kusscll appeared for the Trustees, and Mr i\V. Stringer, K.C., for tho AttorneyGenera!. Mr Russell said that the application for a declaratory judgment was to determine certain doubts as to the powers of the Trustees to admit to the Home persons who in other respects were qualified for admission, but who were, or had been, in roceint of a pension or charitable aid within three J"** 1 " ot making their applications. The trustees found that a very large number ot persons who applied had tbe pension, and while they were anxious to carry lout tlie will in its entirety, they found I themselves ha in no red by an opinion | that they had no nower to admit to ! the H..UI- ladies eligible under one c!au_ of Y:e will, but who were in receipt of a pension. Under sub-clause -. clause G of the will, it was stated xhat no person should he admitted to the McLean Institute but such as were poor and of good character, who had !>een resident in tho colony for a period of three years, and who had not been in receipt of a pension or charitable j aid for "three years within the time of j making application for admission. The j question was whether this applied to j the •''gentlewomen of reduced or j i straitened circumstances" mentioned in clause 1. of the will, or applied only to ner.sons mentioned in sub-clause 2. \ In reolv to his Honour, Mr Russell | «aid thaVthe pronerty known as Holly Lea was subject to a life tenancy, and j was not in the possession of the Trus- ; tees. There was, however, a purchasing clause in the will, and another pro , pertv had been purchased. The Trustees'had had several applications from ladies who would readily have been j taken into the Home, but as they were j in reeeint of the pension they were do- j barred " from residence there. The j Trustees had adopted tho course, in the meantime, of receiving only those who , would ultimately be eligible for adnus- : tiion to Holly Lea. Mr Russell continued that all through the will the dominant note was ! the care and protection of women who | would be eligible for admission to Holly j Lea. Mr McLean had grouped the ; women into two classes. The first j class named in clause 1. referred to j women of refinement or education who were in reduced or straitened circum- - stances. It would be lound that Mr I McLean had laid it down that these were to be preferred to tho other class The others "wero merely to come in it funds permitted. If, after providing for those in clause 1. there was money over, those in sub-clause 2 were to he provided for. No one knew better than Mr McLean that gentlewomen in reduced and straitened circumstances were likely to be recipients of old age pensions, and it was hardly likely that his intention was to exclude them Irom an institution which he was providing for their special benefit. He contended that tho restrictions contained in subclause 2 did not refer to tho applicants described as "women of refinement or education in reduced or straitened circumstances." It had become a very common thing for these people to receive the old a.c pension, and it they were debarred they would, to gain admission, have to deprive themselves of tho pension for three years. Counsel contended that this was not the intention of the testator. Mr Stringer contended that the in- i terpretation which his learned friend wished to put on the will attributed to I tho draughtsman of the will a violation , of th-* elementary rules of draughts- ! manship. Mr Russell contended that although tho words had not been changed in the particular passage referred to, the meaning had been entirely changed. Mr Russell also attributed to tho testator that the property of Holly Lea, which was marked out for the reception of n special class of inmates, should have none of the safeguards which applied to the other class of inmates, who were admittedly only a secondary consideration in the will. Mr Russell", if logical in his argument, must contend that persons might be admitted to Holly Lea although thoy were not poor, or of good character, or had been resident in the colony for three years. Either the whole of subclause "2 applied to those mentioned in clause 1, or none of it applied. It waa obviously tho intention of the testator that the women of refinement and education in reduced or straitened circumstances, which was a euphemism for poverty, must be poor and of good character, and possess the other qualifications, before they could be admitted. This was not a case where a forced construction of the will was necessary to prevent an obvious absurdity. The testator had expressed his meaning plainly, and there was no necessity for a forced construction. The testator meant that persons who bad practically been receiving charity from the public, in the way of pensions or charitable aid, should not be admitted to his institution. His Honour said that the testator might have felt that these people .ere already being provided for. Mr Stringer said that that waa the case. The testator saw that these people were being provided for out of the public purse. Mr Russell having replied, his Honour reserved his decision.