AWARD REFUSED

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 130, 4 June 1931, Page 12

AWARD REFUSED

STUDENT'S CLAIM

TARANAKI SCHOLARSHIP

CASE FOE APPEAL COURT

An application was ma do before Mr. Justice MacGregor in the Supreme Court to-day by James Wiucote Syme, student, of Hawcra, suing by his guardian ad litcm, Bernard M'Carthy, solicitor, of Hawera, for a declaration that he is entitled to an.award by the University of New Zealand of a Taranaki Scholarship, tenable for three years. Legal argument on behalf of the plaintiff had not proceeded very far, however, when his Honour suggested that the case was one for the Court of Appeal, and by consent a little later the parties agreed to that course. Mr. F. C. Spratt appeared for the 'plaintiff, and Mr. P. B. Cooke, with Mr. Christie, for the University of New Zealand. STATEMENT OP CLAIM. Jt was set out in the statement of claim that by section 17 of the University Amendment Act, 1914, there were established scholarships to be called Taranaki Scholarships, one or more of which was to be offered annually, and it was claimed that the New" Zealand University Senate was charged by Statute with the awarding of the scholarships. By section 18 of the Act it was provided that the Senate might from time to time, with the approval of the Minister of Education, make regulations for the effectual carrying out of section 17. On 23rd February, 1924, the University of New Zealand" purported to make a certain regulation or "Statute" with reference to Taranaki Scholarships in the following words: —"The scholarship shall be awarded on the results of the Entrance Scholarship Examination to the University, but no scholarship shall be awarded to a candidate unless he obtains credit in the examination and is deemed worthy by the council." The regulation ,was made with the approval of the Minister of Education. AWARD REFUSED. In November, 1929, the Senate offered Taranaki Scholarships tenable for the years 1930, 1931, and 1932. The plaintiff entered for a Taranaki Scholarship and sat in the Junior Scholar-ship-Examination of 1929, in which he obtained credit. The plaintiff, it was claimed, was duly qualified by age, residence, and attendance at a school within the Taranaki provincial district and otherwise for the award of a Taranaki Scholarship according to the requirements of section 17 of the Act. The plaintiff applied for the award of a Taranaki Scholarship on the result of the examination, but the Senate refused to make him an award. It was alleged that in refusing to award the scholarship the Senate did not consider or' have before it any information as to the qualifications of or otherwise concerning the plaintiff other than the results of the examination. The plaintiff had not been invited or requested to furnish evidence of the possession of sufficient qualifications other than the examination. It was claimed that funds were available for the award of a scholarship to the plaintiff as well as to other candidates who obtained credit in the examination. The plaintiff had entered as a student of Canterbury College and kept terms in 1930. On his behalf a claim was made (1) for a declaration that ho was and is entitled to the award of a Taranaki Scholarship tenable for three years; (2) an order that the Senate of the University award such scholarship to the plaintiff; (3) costs .of the action. UNIVERSITY'S DEFENCE. The statement of defence admitted that the plaintiff possessed the qualifications set out in section 17 of the New Zealand University Amendment Act, 1914, but denied that the plaintiff was or is entitled to the award of such scholarship. Further, it was claimed that the Senate did not deem the. plaintiff worthy of a Taranaki Scholarship, and that the Registrar of the University had informed the plaintiff of that view by letter, dated 30th April, 1930. For a further defence, it was urged that tho statement of claim disclosed no cause of action against the defendant. In opening, Mr. Spratt dealt at some length with tho history of the legislation bearing on the matter, after which his Honour asked whether the questions involved should not be referred to the Court, of Appeal.

Mr. Spratt said the matter was one of importance to tlic IJjiiversity, and a matter of £180 to his client. His Honour: "There. is an important question of principle involved." Continuing, Mr. Spratt said that in tlic year Symc sat for the examination there were'eight who gained credit. The first four were awarded Taranaki Scholarships. Syme, who came lower on the list, received no award. There were ample funds available, the rents alone being more than sufficient to pay for them. CANDIDATE'S QUALIFICATION. Mr. Spratt submitted that the 1914 Act provided that as long as there were funds and the candidate liad qualified lie was entitled to his scholarship. His contention was that the examination was primarily qualifying and not competitive. It was only competitive in the sense that if there were not sufficient funds to give scholarships to all who had qualified, then one had to look at the results in so far as they showed the order of merit. He maintained that as long as the Junior Scholarship examination, or Entrance Examination as it was called, was adopted as the test, then the sole qualification a candidate had to havo was credit in that examination. "DEEMED WOKTHY." His Honour raised the question of what was meant by the words "deemed worthy-" I Mr. Spratt said it was thought the ! words related to character rather than to attainments. His Honour repeated his suggestion that the case should bo referred to the Court of Appeal, sitting on 22nd June, and after Mr. Cookc had been heard on the question of removal, and had referred briefly to the phrase "deemed worthy," both parties consented to the adoption of that course. The expression "deemed worthy," .said Mr. Cookc, had an academic meaning— academic in the technical sense. "Deemed worthy," generally speaking, meant scholastically worthy. His Honour made an order by consent removing the case into the Court of Appeal. Leave was reserved to cither party to adduce evidence at the hearing if it desired, on condition that the evidence was produced to either party before the hearing.