RATING CHARITABLE HOMES

Evening Star, Issue 15136, 18 March 1913, Page 4

RATING CHARITABLE HOMES

INTERESTING TEST CASE. BAY TOWN BOARD v. VERDON. The question as to whether or not the Homo of the Sacred Heart at Anderson Ray, which is conducted by the little Sisters of the Poor, is exempt from rates under the Rating Act was argued before His Honor Mr Justice Williams at the Court this morning in tho case of the Bay Town Board v. Bishop Void on and others—motion for the recovery of rates, amounting to £SB 10s. Mr John (MacGregor appeared for the plaintiffs; Mr J. B. Callan, Jim., for the defendants.

Mr MacGregor said that the facts were admitted, and the only question was ono of law. In order to saro time and trouble .they had taken down the following evidence of the only witness “ The Home of the Sacred Heart at Anderson Bay is conducted by the Little Sisters of the Poor. It is a home for the aged poor of all denominations. Two conditions are required ■of applicants for admission to the home by the Little Sisters of the Poor—viz., old age and poverty. Old 'age means 60 years of age. The 60 years’ limit is very rarely relaxed, and then only after reference to the Mother-General in France, The Superior (Good -Mother) of each homo is, in the first instance, the person to decide whether or not there is the requisite amount of poverty. If fhere are two applicants and accommodation for only one, the poorer always has preference; and in case of one with and one without a. pension, the pensioner would he excluded. The Sisters consider a person ‘poor’ for their purposes when he or she has not enough to live on. It the applicant lias some money they do not take him or her in while possessing that money. They say: ‘ Our home is for the poor, and the po’or only. Wo have hero old people who have nothing at all. It would nor he fair to take in you who have some money. You must either stay out and live on your money until you have used it all, and then we will take yon, or, if you choose tn give your money to tile home, and so in ate yourself poor and at the same time help us* to help other old people, w© will take you.’ This is the system followed, by the Little Sisters of the Poor all over the world, a system they are required to follow by their rules. When in Xew Zealand they came in contact, with the Old Age Pension Act. They applied to pensions the same system as they had always applied to any property possessed by an applicant. If the. old people had the pension they got them to give it up to the home. 'Hie Sisters find clothes tor all of them—pensioners and o the re. They give the pensioners back 13s 4d a month pocketmoney. They make no difference between those that have the full pension and those that have not the. full pension. 'I hey have inmates—about half—who are not. eligible for and do not receive, the pension. They do not give these the 15s 4d pocket-money, hut in all other respects they are treated just, as the psnsioneis. .During the last two years they have adopted the rule of refusing lo accept any old age pensioners, unless they would abandon their pensions —i.e.. cease to be pensioners—but they still keep the pensioners they had before. This practice has been adopted as being in strict conformity with the rules of their foundation. Each foundation is selfsupporting. It may receive an advance by way of loan from the mot hoi- house, but this must he repaid. Every day two of the Sisters go out collecting, receiving donations of clothes, books, food, etc., and subscriptions in money. The borne was founded here with the aid of a fund which had been collected for the purpose during the course of some years previous. The system that is followed with, regard to those inmates who arc pensioners is that one of the Sisters draws their pension moneys under section 41 of the Old Age Pensions Act. the Sister in question having made the application and declaration provided for in that section.”

The statement was put into court and accepted. Air Chilian intimated that the onus was on the defendants to bring themselves under the exemptions they claimed to come under. What was contended for the defendants was that the property on which it was sought to recover rates was exempt under section 2 (subsection I and subsection J). Dealing with the claim for exemption under subsection 1, it was contended that the property in respect of which these rates were .sued for was a hospital within the moaning of that word as used in the subsection. In support of that contention it was submitted that the facts in the case were governed by the decision in the Wellington Hospital and Charitable Aid Board v. the .Major of AVellinglnn, a case which was before the Supreme Court in AVellington at the end of 1911. The institution the rateability of which was in issue in that case was an old men’s home, and it differed, it was submitted, in no way from the institution in the present case, except in this: that the institution in Wellington .was under the control of the AA r ellington Hospital and Charitable Aid Board. But the point in issue in that case was as to the meaning of the word “ hospital ” for the purposes of the subsection, and what was decided by the Full C ourt was put in these words in the judgment;—“lt may be that the word ‘ hospital ’ has to some extent come to be used as referring primarily to an institution for the medical and surgical treatment of sick and injured persons. Possibly in colonics this tendency to narrow its meaning is more marked than in older countries, but it is quite out of the question to suggest that such transitory considerations are to govern the Court' in construing a statute. As to what may he termed the legal meaning, there is no doubt that in earlier times it had a very wido range. . . , This Court, ought, however, to be content to accept the meaning attributed to the word by the Privy Council, unless wo can see that the statute under consideration affords grounds for attributing to it a more restricted meaning. According to that Court it primarily signifies a place built for the reception of the sick or the support of the aged or infirm poor.’ ” It was submitted that this institution was as much within that meaning of the word “hospital” as the institution under consideration in the AVellington case. There was nothing whatever in the subsection iu the decision to suggest that that definition could lie in anv way limbed by a qualification that the' institution must be publicly managed. In (he subsection, curiously,'the word “public” appeared before “asylum.’’ and was left out before “hospital',” and it was submitted that some significance must be attached to that arrangement of words. He admitted that the construction for which he was contending might lead to a certain duplication of exemptions-—that there might be institutions which were exempt under subsection J as well as in subsection I—but the reply to that was ’ that that method of endeavoring to construe the sections in the Rating Act was an unsatisfactory and impossible method, and had been so described by the Full Court in the Wellington case. Subsection 2of section 69 conferred a discretion .upon local authorities to exempt certain institutions from rates as a matter of grace, but the Full Court pointed out that some of these institutions were themsotVes manifestly already exempt. • That supported his contention that it was impossible to find complete consistency and a coherent scheme in the different sections of the Rating Act. The Full Court said there was duplication in another way, inasmuch as public, asylums and quarantine stations were always exempted, and Crown lands were themselves exempted by another section. In approaching this question of exemption, under the Rating Act the only possible mode, of construction was to inquire as to the meanings of the words, or in the particular section under which the exemption was claimed, and if the word—in this case the word “ hospital’’—had a well-defined legal meaning that was the end of the matter, and that construction could not be rebutted if there were two sections both of which accomplished the same result. Continuing, counsel said that the position was that the administrators of the Old Age Pensions Act, notwithstanding the statute, imagined that sections 40 and 41 of that Act applied to this institution', and had permitted the ladies referred to in the last paragraph of the written statement put into court to receive from old i age pensioners their pension moneys.

His Honor : There is no reason why the sisters should not act as agent, but if old men pay part of their pensions, does it not take the defendants out of sub-section J?

Mr Callan replied that the pension money received by the sisters was received by the concurrence of the old age pensioners, who had the right to stop the system at any moment. Ihey were perfectly free to take their pension or not. All that the institution demanded of applicants for admission was that they should be poor. It was perfectly true that several old age pensioners gave up a considerable portion of their pension money for the benefit of the institution. The practice now was that if a person who received the old age pension applied for admission to the home he would not be admitted unless he ceased to be a pensioner. Ho must reduce himself to absolute indigence. But a number of the inmates who had been receiving the old age pension for some considerable time were still receiving it and giving a considerable portion of it to the institution. That was the only difficulty to get over in regard to sub-section ,T. Mr MacGregor submitted the scheme of the section they were dealing with was extremely simple. Sub-section L dealt exclusively with public institutions, and sub-section J dealt exclusively with private institutions. What ho would submit in regard to the word “ hospital ” was that as used in New Zealand it commonly connoted a public institution, and that was the view that had been taken up by the Chief Justice in a somewhat similar case.; Learned counsel quoted authorities in support of his contentions, «and contended that the old age pension moneys really amounted to a subsidy. His Honor ; They are not a subsidy out of the public funds. The old age pensioners are simply handing over their money.

Mr MacGregor ; The institution is being treated as having a right to receive such moneys.

His Honor : That, apparently, is a mis take.

Mr MacGregor ; The institution is receiving money as by right, and not by an act of grace on the part of the ,old age pensioners.

His Honor ; Well, that is all wrong. Mr MacGregor Quite so, your Honor; but- that is the position. His Honor, after hearing further argument, said that the question was a troublesome one, and that he would take time to consider it.

In reply to His Honor, Air Callan said that if the present practice was continued the institution would in time receive no pensions at all.

His Honor remarked that if the defendants had acted on the strict rule followed now’ they would not have been called upon to pay rates.