COSTLEY HOME INQUIRY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14016, 23 March 1909, Page 6

COSTLEY HOME INQUIRY.

THE MANAGER DISSATISFIED. APPEAL FOR A HEARINGAt the meeting of the Hospital and Charitable Aid Board yesterday a letter was read from Mr. W. Bannerman, manager of the Costley Home, with reference to the recent inquiry. ..He wished, he wrote, to draw attention to the fact that after all evidence had been taken = and upon which he was allowed the right of cross-examination, ho was asked by

the chairman of, the Board to retire from the inquiry, ,and .was not • allowed to present any personal defence to any of the charges brought against him. • Neither was he granted the privilege of summing up the evidence which had been given. This, he claimed, was a privilege which he was still entitled to, and after receiving such privilege he would be pleased to receive and abide by any decision or resolution at which the Board might arrive.

- The chairman (Mr. G. Knight) moved that the letter be received-

Mr. P..M. Mackay moved, as an amendment, "That the evidence taken be submitted to the Inspector-General of Hospitals, and that he be asked if there was sufficient for a Departmental inquiry." Mr. J. Jenkin, who said he thought Mr. Bannerman had been very fairly treated by the Board, seconded the motion. Mr. L. J. Bagnall said that if Mr. Bannerman looked into the matter he would Sao that the finding of the Board was practically what he had admitted himself. He approved the amendment. Mr. M. J. Coyle said that had Mr. Bannerman addressed the Board, it would not have made the slightest difference, and he thought that . Mr. , Bannerman would be very wise if he left the matter as.at present. The chaiimao regretted that Mr. Bannerman should have written as he had. He _ (the chairman) thought that the wisest policy to pursue was to receive the letter and say no more. He thought that the Board had treated Mr. Bannerman most fairly. Mr. Bannerman'said that after the evidence had been taken he (the chairman) requested him to leave the room. The reason he (the chairman) did so was because he thought the evidence was sufficient without any summing-up. He opposed the amendment, as if the Board adopted it it wo-ild only be belittling itself, as it would be.asking for an inquiry into a matter which it had power to deal with itself. Mr. Mackay, while pressing the amendment on the ground that Mr. Bannerman should not be allowed to think-that he had not been given fair play, said that, in his opinion, the Board had been most fair in fact, it had administered a homcepathic dose. • • Mr. Coyle thought that Mr. Bannerman should approach the Inspector-General himself if he wanted to.

After further discussion, it was resolved to inform Mr. Bannerman that if he was not satisfied he could make application for a Departmental inquiry, and in that event the evidence already taken would be submitted. ,