THE REFUGE QUESTION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9096, 3 July 1888, Page 6

THE REFUGE QUESTION.

SELECTION OF A SITE.

LEGAL OPINION.

THE HOSPITAL SITE ABANDONED. At the Hospital and Charitable Aid Board, last evening, the following opinion was read from Messrs. Hesketh and Richmond in reference to the above matter :—

Our opinion is asked by the Auckland Hospital and Charita'jle Aid Board upon the following question : " Can the Board legally, for charitable aid purposes, erect buildings upon the Hospital grounds, or upon any of the Hospital endowments ? The endowments referred to are contained in the " Return of Hospital Reserves" furnished to us and attached hereto, and these reserves or endowments are set out in the schedule to the Auckland Hospital Reserve Act, '83, and axe part of the lands held by the Public Trustee as security for repayment of the mbney borrowed in 1875 to build the present Hospital,by virtue of the Public Buildings Act, 1875 (Auckland Provincial Council). Attached hereto are our reasons at length for our opinion, which shortly stated is as follows : 1. These lands are now in the Public Trust Office on the trusts in connection with which lands are required to be administered by the Public Trustee under the Public Trust Act, 1871, and the amendments thereto. 2. The Hospital and Charitable Institutions Act, 1885, and its amendments do not appear to take these lands out of the Public Trust _ Office, and vest them in the Hospital Board. 3. Assuming that these lands are now vested in the Hospital Board, upon the trusts and for the purposes set out in the three Crown grants of the same, the Board cannot legally use these lands for the purpose of erecting thereon buildings for charitable aid purposes. 4. Under these grants these lands ate not granted as sites for a hospital, though the grant (of the Hospital site) recites that the same has been marked on the maps as a site for a hospital. 5. The grants grant the lands as endowments for the maintenance and support of a hospital, and to appropriate the lands or the income arising therefrom for the support and maintenance of any other object than a hospital would be improper.—(Signed) Hesketh and Richmond, July 2,1888. The Chairman suggested that the public trustee could be asked to put up the endowments again for lease, the Board giving up their lease as to the Ellerslie site to enable the trustee to do so. The Board could then bid for the sites for Refuge purposes. The * motions of Messrs. Mays and Crowther, as already reported in our columns, and which were deferred pending counsel's opinion, then came before the Board, when the former gentleman said he would withdraw his motion and accept Mr. Crowther's, if the latter would confine the sites to be reported on to the Ellerslie and Epsom sites. Mr. Dignan did not see why they should refer the matter to experts at all. He favoured their selecting their own site themselves. Other members agreed with this idea, but the majority dissented. Mr. Udv said if Messrs. Mays and Crowther would withdraw their motions, he would move, " That the Epsom site be selected at once and end the matter."

Mr. Cooper seconded this idea.

Mr. Mays said ho would withdraw his motion on the understanding that the sites be left unnamed at present. Mr. Crowther said he gave up the Hospital site with great reluctance. He thought nature could not supply a better one, and this opinion had been strengthened by conversations he had had with others. The opinion, of course, he argued, did not alter the matter at all, as all the sites were subject to the same conditions and restrictions. He liked the Epsom site, and should give it preference over Ellerslie, if he were not afraid of getting into trouble as to water or drainage. If they could get water from either Newmarket or Onehunga he would be inclined to yield the point. He believed a two-inch pipe could be laid from Newmarket.

Mr. Isaacs was pleased the Hospital site was given up. He thought now they could the more quickly arrive at a conclusion. Mr. Ckowthek said the two sites he meant were the Hospital site and Epsom site.

The Chairman and several members here exclaimed they had understood Mr. Crowther to distinctly mean Epsom and Ellerslie. Mr. Ckowthkr said they had misunderstood him then. It was, however, ultimately decided to vote for Mr. Crowther's motion without naming the sites. Mr. Udy again moved, as an amendment, " That the Epsom site be selected." Mr. Cooper seconded it, but on being put the amendment was lost. The motion was then put, as follows, and was carried by 6to 3: —" That Drs. Philson, Stock well, and Wright be asked to examine and report, -with Mr. Jas. Stewart, C.E., and Mr. Hales, Government Engineer, as to the comparative suitability of the sites to be submitted by this Board, the whole of the Board to examine and submit sites from which the experts shall select, and that their decision shall be final, upon which the Board undertakes to act. (The decision of three members, at least, to be required. Subjects for experts to report on : Health, economical management, sanitary matters: also water and lighting requirements)." The Chairman then moved, " That the sites to be reported on by the experts be the western portion of the Ellerslie site and the One-tree Hill site."

This was seconded by Mr. Isaacs. Mr. M. Niccol moved, " That the Hospital site be included."

The amendment was seconded by Mr. Crowther, but on being put was lost. The motion was put and carried by 6 to 2. For: Messrs. Sturges, Cooper, Mays, Isaacs, Dignan, and Ambury. Against : Messrs. Crowther and Atkin.' The motion was declared carried.