HOSPITAL COMMISSION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19405, 13 August 1926, Page 14

HOSPITAL COMMISSION.

CHANGES by architect. MOTORS FOR THE LAUNDRY. MISTAKE CONCERNING CURRENT SECRETARY'S CASE OPENED. The Auckland Hospital inquiry was continued yesterday before the commissioner, Mr. A. Gray, K.C. Further evidence was given in support of the charges mado by the architect.. Mr. G. W. Allsop, against the secretary, Mr. H. A. Somerviile, whose counsel, Mr. Meredith, opened the case in reply before the commission rose for the day. Replying to Mr. Meredith, Mr. Allsop said that witnesses would be making a | mistake if they sw'ore ho had denied, at a ! board meeting in March having received a letter from Andersons, Limited, inquiring tho nature of the electric current available for the laundry motors. Ho had not mentioned in subsequent corres : pondence that the letter from Andersons, Limited, had been misplaced. Ho agreed it would ,be wrong to attempt to deceive the chairman or the board. Mr. Meredith: Did you ever suggest that Mr. Walker, tho consulting engineer, was responsible for tho mistake about tho current!-—Witness: I believe I did discuss it with the chairman. When?*—l cannot remember. Witness denied that tho board had taken tho installation of the laundry maehinevy out of his hands. Ho know Mr. Walker had gone to Christchurch to discuss the position with Andersons, Limited. Witness had also gone With Mr. Walker, but the board had not sent him, nor had it paid his oxpenses. Ho had not asked it to do so. Ho had notreported tho error because Mr. Walker said ho would fix it up. No Knowledge of Electricity. It was purely an electrical matter and witness know nothing about electricity. Mr. Walker had told him to certify Andersons' account, and ho believed that Mr. Walker would have certified it if he had been asked to do so. Had the board acted on witness'' certificate the account would have been paid in full. . - Mr. Meredith: Why did you not exr plain the position regarding the machinery when you certified tho account?— Witness: I did not think there was anything to explain. When did you intend to tell the board about it?—l am not suro I ever thought about that. I suggest that you were keeping it quiet to save your skin, in the matter.—Not at all. * Witness said that often-after the completion of works, adjustments had to bo made and tho matter under discussion could havo beon adjusted without detriment to the board. You asked to be put in this job ? Yes, after my 16 years' study of laundries. You considered ypu were quite capable of handling® it?— Yes. ''. Proud of the Job." Are you. proud of the joh ?—-Yt:s. There is only this ono mistake.' ! am proud of tho job. In reply to the commissioner, witness said ho had always engaged electrical experts to guide him in matters dealing with electricity. j Regarding tho allegation that the secretary had inconvenienced him by holding the plans and specifications for the Franklin Hospital, witness said he knew Mr. Somerviile had sent for the plans, etc., under instructions from the chairman of the board. He was not awaro that Mr. Walker had had to pay several visits to that hospital to. adjust the electrical steriliser. Inquiries had been mado as to. the power available, and ho had no knowledge that it had been necessary to provide a temporary steriliser because power was not available after midnight. In regard to tho allegations that tho secretary had deferred the payment of some of his acoounts, Mr. Allsop said that on one occasion a cheque for £345 had been paid and he had apologised to j" the secretary over that matter. Mr. Meredith : Were you oblivious for seven months that that account had been paid ?—Witness: I certainly was. Witness said he issued the writ against Mr, Somerviile because he felt that things had reached breaking-point. Witness was cross-examined at some length by Mr. A. H. Johnstone, counsel for tho Board, concerning tho meeting in March at which, it was alleged, he had denied receiving the inquiry from Andersons, Ltd., regarding tho nature of the current available at the laundry, Mr. Allsop said tot .if ho had left that impression it was unintentional, because he would not havo tried to deceive tho board. Finally, he said that about the best way to put it would be to say that he could not remember whether he made tho denial or not. A Question of Duty. , Mr. Johnstone: Do you not think it was your duty to have reportid the error to the board as soon as it had#been discovered. Witness: I do now, seeing the gravity of the mistake. At tho time, however. I thought it was only a small electrical matter capable of adjustment. In reply to Mr. Northcroft, Mr. Allsop said that prior to the meeting in March he had already acknowledged receiving the letter from Andersons, Ltd. George B. Bayley, clerk, of works at the Costlay Home, whose withdrawal from his duties on one occasion was regarded by the architect as interference • with his department on the part of the. secretary, said ho could not.recall what particular job was being done at tho time. He had been told by two board members not to leave.his work 6n any account, hut ho had obeyed the summons to the board office because ho took it that it came from his "bosses." 'Ho had not made any protest about being taken from his work. The message had com© from tho house manager, Mr. Eastgato, and at the board's office ho had seen Mis 3 Stevenson, a clerk. Mr. John Howe, a member of the Hospital Board, said he had moved a motion that the architect should bo asked to report on tho flues at the hospital. The engineer had" made the report. Witness said the rumour that a girder had been made a foot short was ridiculous. In reply to Mr. Meredith, witness said it might have been three years since the meeting, but he was quite clear he had mentioned the architect in his motion, and that it had mot been amended. Advice by the Chairman. Replying to Mr, Johnstone, witness said that in his- opinion the whole of the board's building programme was necessary. None of the members had ever objected to the buildings being erected. He claimed 45 years' experience as a member of loc&l boiiiies, and he thought the people of Auckland were to bo congratulated on tho composition of the present myself as one of them," he added. . In reply to the commissioner, Mr. Rowe said he had examined the specifications of tho Wallace Wards and other buildings very closely and he'had no fault to find with them. Mr. W. Wallace, chairman of the ljoard, was; recalled by Mr, Northcroft! Ho said he had spoken to the secretary regarding complaints from the architect that his accounts had not been met. Sir. Somerviile replied that he would see the cashier, and was not aware the accounts had been held up.

Ml'.' Northcroft: Did yon .tarn Mr. Allsop's attitude that .the holding up of the accounts was causing irritation. —Witness: Yes. ... Did you speak to them .about it-. Witness: Yes. I appealed to them as men not to act like " kids " and told them that if they had any differences to get together, thrash them out, shake hands and work harmoniously in the interests of -the boardWitness said he could not remember whether he had authorised the reimbursement of the architect for an expendituie of 8s on morning tea at Waiuku. Mr. Northcroft: Ought it to have been paid Witness: I do not know. 1 often .go io Wellington on business and although I get my railway and hotel expenses C spend a lot of money on the board's - business that I do not charge to an allegation of failure to givo the architect adequate notice of meetings, Mr. Wallace said he was present at the board's office 011 a Saturday morning ivhert an endeavour was made to notify Mr. Allsop by telephone ,of_a meeting for the following Tuesday. He noted this* fact on the architect's apology for absence, !in which he said his absence was due to the late receipt of the notice. Respecting queries the secretary haq, made 011 dome of tho architect s accounts, Mr. Meredith asked if it was not part of the secretary's duty to "keep an eye on the accounts? —Witness: Certainly. That is what he is there for. Witness said Mr. Allsop stated at the meeting in March that' ne had -not received from Andersons, Limited, inquiry respecting the nature of the current available for the motors for the laundry. Afterwards witness made a change of his own accord in the installation of the machinery. He told Mr. Walker lie had better take charge of the motors. No explanation was made by either Mr. Allsop or Mr, Walker, but Mr- Walker said he knew, nothing of the matter, but that if it were left in his hands the board would not be at a loss,: as he • could dispose of the ir.otorsi. Two of the motors had since been disposed of. . The Commissioner: At a loss ?—-Witness: There was a big loss of time, and through all the capital lying idle. ' A Lack of Candour. In reply to Mr- Meredith, witness said that at- the' meeting Mr. Walker had dented responsibility for the' mistake: He did so in the. presence of the architect and that had been his attitude all through. To Mr. Northcroft: Ho thought there was' a lack of candoiir on all sides respecting the letter from Andersons, Limited. Mr. Northcroft: Did you know that in all electrical matters, Mr. Allsop relied on Mr. Walker for advice J —Witness: I did not know thatAt any late, in hospital work, you know that Mr. Allsop relied on Mr. Walker ?--Witness: I expected him to, but I do not think there was the cooperation there should have been: " That remains to be ascertained," said Mr. Northcroft. Witness said the idea of engaging Mr. Walker to work with Mr. Allsop in the arrangemeut of tho laundry was to make" doubly suro the work would bo well carried out by engaging two men who claimed to be experts in laundry work. When Mr. Northcroft intimated that this closed the case for Mr. Allsop, Mr. Meredith asked whether any evidence was to be called on the statements concerning Mr. Allsop which Mr. Somerviile was alleged • to have mado in the presence of Mr. Wallace ami/Mr. S. J. Harbutt, a member of tho board. Both of- these witnesses were available. If they were not called ho was entitled to take it-that this charge had been abandoned. Payment of Accounts. Mr. Meredith then opened the case for Mr. Somerviile. He suggested that the totjil of the accounts concerning which there had boon complaint, of delay in payment was trifling. He submitted that Mr. Allsop was so hard put to it in his charges '-that he used some details twice under different ! headings. Mr. Somerviile,. in Ibis capacity as secretary of the board, had many duties, a schedule of i which counsel read and handed to the commissioner. He could not 'be expected to .attend personally to ail matters.' Many duties were delegated to members of the staff, and among them was the making of payments authorised by the' board* It was' Mr.: Somerville's duty to check- all accounts, but when the accounts had been passed tho actual handing over of the cheques was left to the cashier. The cheques were signed by tho chairman and 'another member of the board and by the secretary. Sometimes it would be necessary to wait for some time until all the signatures' could be obtained. . Mr. AHsop had never mado written complaint concerning delays in paying his accounts, .nor had; ho sent in accounts rendered. Now it transpired that Mr. Allsop had made personal complaint to the chairman. Counsel suggested that Mr. .Allsop's attitude was not _ clue to bona-fide grounds for. complaint, but ] rather to personal animus toward Mr. j Somerviile., . . * j Dealing with the charges of withholding payments, Mr. Meredith said that Mr. Allsop might well have dropped tho claim "for Ba, the amount he had spent in entertaining the members of the board. Further, he would- have been wiser to havo suid less than ho did about the discounts on charges for advertisements. Amount of Commission. As to diverting work from the architect, it. would seem that Mr. Allsop had a keen desire for work when it carried a commission of 5 per cent. But all he could produce in this connection was a. ( job on which his commission was only 17s. Had the sum been a large amount, one might have, understood his complaint, but it was' trifling to make a charge in respect of only a few shillings. Counsel also traversed the allegations of interference and lack of co-operation, commenting on them in similar strain. It seemed childish to suggest that an advertisement had been altered in tho heading just to spite Mr. Allsop. As a matter of fact, a committee of the board had decreed the stylo of tho advertisement and Mfe. Somerviile had obeyed the - instruct tions. Tho architect had nothing to do with liens, which were served on tho person who made the payments. 'Mr. Allsop had no right to make a deduction from" a builder's accciunt in view of tho placing of a lien of which he must havo picked up knowledge in tho street. Instead of making a charge against Mr. Somerviile in respect of this matter, Mr. Allsop, counsel said, would havo done touch better to have minded his own business. Tho inquiry was adjourned until 10 o'clock this morning, when Mr. Meredith will continue his address.