IMPORTANT TO CHARITABLE AID INSTITUTIONS.

New Zealand Times, Volume LI, Issue 8525, 3 November 1888, Page 5

IMPORTANT TO CHARITABLE AID INSTITUTIONS.

(PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.) Dunedin, November 2,

Judgment was given to-day by Mr Carew, R.M., in a case of importance to charitable institutions. The Otago Benevolent Trustees sued the South Canterbury Charitable Aid Board for relief given to Maggie Sharp and her children. The claim was. made under section 74 of the Hospital and Charitable Institutions Act of 1885. The young woman was an inmate of the Timarn institution for six mouths or more, and then came down here for relief. Some correspondence took place between tbe two Boards, resulting in relief being afforded by the institution in Dunedin. The Board at Timarn were willing to pay for her mainten* anoe for six months; in fact, they had done so, and claimed that they were not liable for anything beyond that. The reason for this action on the part of the Timarn Board was that the young woman had failed to acquire settlement in Timarn, and that after paying for six months’ maintenance their liability ended. Mr Carew, in giving judgment, said:—“The argument and the case was based upon this proviso-'-requiritig a residence of six months within the district sought to be charged for the relief—hut I do not think that is the intended meaning. What I do think is intended is that to give a board or trustee a right to recover for relief afforded to a person coming from another district, the person must have resided in that other district within six months of his first receiving relief frcm the plaintiff Board. The proviso does not say or imply that a six months’ residence in a district shall give a settlement. What will give a settlement is left to the interpretation of the word, “reside but it means that, for the purposes of the section, non-resi-dence for six months in a district in which a person formerly resided shall take it away in respect to the district ; or, in other words, the “six months” does not refer to tbe length of residence in a district, but to the latest period at whioh tbe person resided in the district. If, however, the other interpretation is the correct one, it would lead me to the same conclusion, although with a doubt upon one point, that is, whether ander tbe circumstances of this case a break in the actual residence within the district will affect the right to recover. As to “ residence,” meaning a residence free from receipt of relief, it seems to me there is nothing in our act to warrant that interpretation. It is so in England, but because it is so provided by 9 and 10 Victoria chapter 66. As to the question whether only the cost of indoor relief is recoverable, I can see no reason why it should be so, and I think tbe words ‘ Entered the institntion from which he obtained relief ’ is merely a loose way of expressing the time when a person shall first become a charge upon an institution, which word by the interpretation clause is not confined to mean a building or premises, bnt extends to the administration by any body or association of persona of charitable aid. Judgment for the plaintiff for £l3 ISs, costs £3 11s 6d, in addition to £7 12s paid into Court.