MENTAL PATIENT'S ESTATE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15748, 24 October 1914, Page 5

MENTAL PATIENT'S ESTATE

IN PUBLIC TRUSTEE'S HANDS.

EFFECT OF "TECHNICAL" DISCHARGE.

The affairs of Reginald Walter Hill, who escaped from the Porirua Mental Hospital slightly over a year ago, were mentioned at the Supremo Court yesterday, when His Honor Mr. Justice Cooper gave judgment in connection with Hill's application for an interpretation of certain sections of the Mental Defectives Act. The applij cation was brought for the purpose of enabling Hill to regain control of his estate, which is at present being administered by the Public Trustee. The relevant facte, the judgment stated, were that on May 13, 1912, the plaintiff was received into the Auckland Mental Hospital as a mentally defective person under a reception order made under Part 1 of the Mental Defectives Act, 1911. On February 13, 1913, he was transferred as a patient to the mental hospital at Porirua, whence he escaped on April 17, 1913, since which time he had been at large. Not having been retaken in the three months laid down by the Act, Hill was deemed to have been discharged. It was provided by the Act that in the case of any patient, if no committee of his estate had been appointed under the Act, the Public Trustee should have the custody and administration of his estate. The estate of the patient did not vest in the Public Trustee, but the Public Trustee was entitled to the possession and management of the estate. ' The powers, duties, and functions of the Public Trustee ceased when the patient was discharged under the Act and when it appeared from the notice of discharge that the patient was able to manage his own affairs. The technical discharge resulting from the escape of a patient was not such a discharge. " This is the plaintiff's present position," His Honor continued. "He is no longer a patient within the mean in of the Act, but the Public Trustee his still the duty of managing the plaintiffs estate, as there exists no notice of discharge, from which it is apparent that the plaintiff is able to manasre his own affairs. . . . Until, therefore, the plaintiff, in proper proceedings for that purpose, establishes that he i« of sufficient ahib'tv to manage his own affairs, the Public Trustee cannot be displp.cpd."

Hi'* Honor renwTl.-/»d the derision wouM ho 0 f consirWaKle u«e to thp PnMir Trustee in flip administration of similar esf.af.es. and therefore he would make no order as. in costs.