DUNEDIN S.M. COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3016, 3 January 1912, Page 65

DUNEDIN S.M. COURT.

Saturday, December 23. (Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) Battersby and Co. y. Southland Farmers' Co-operative Association. —Claim £62 10s, Commission on ■ the sale of a run at W aikaia.—Mr Hay appeared for the plaintiffs; Mr W. C. MacGregor -for the defendant.—ln this previously-heard case his Worship gave judgment. He supported ths view of the defence, that any existing arrangement was determined in July.' when the Owner of the run withdrew it from the market, and that the subsequent sale was effected independently of the plaiptff. Judgment would bo for the defendant, with costs (£5 Hs). r. , Otago Hospital and Charitable Aid Board v. Southland Hospital and Charitable Aid Board.—Claim £l7 7s 6d, relief granted and supplied by the plaintiff to Mrs J. W. Smith and family from November 14, 1910, to September, 10, 1911.—Mr White appeared for theVpaintiffs; Mr W. C, MacGregor for the defendants.^—ln this case hig Worship delivered judgment. ' The fact* were, he said, that Mr Smith, who 1 had lived with his wife and family within dha Southland charitable aid district for over seven years, left that district in AugustT9lo, and came to live first at Fairfax, and then at Loudon’s Gully, both of which places aid near Milton, and within the plaintiff board’s district. In the beginning of November, 1910, an application for. relief was mad© to the Otago Board through the Bruce County Council, and temporary re>lief was granted. The constable for the Milton district madeinquiries,. and on November 29 the County Council forwarded the board’s form of application, filled in by the constable, which appeared to be the method then followed Later on the board appointed ah inspector to report on such cased. The application . sent in td the board disclosed that Smith and hibp family had been iri the district only fou» months. This seemed to |iavo teen pye£ looked by the board in- its conaideltatioo of the case, and the relief was continued at the came rate up to January 28, 1911, In June, 1911, the inspector reported that the family would Starve but for : the assist* ance given, and that as they came froA Tuturau the defendant board was presumably liable. The plaintiff board accordingly wrote to defendants giving v - formal notice of claim, and on July 18 the secretary of of the defendant board replied that from, personal knowledge the family was not a charitable aid case, and. the defendant board declined to recognise any . liability. In view of this action the Otago Board stopped the allowance, but after receiving two piteous letters from Mrs Smith the plaintiffs renewed th© allowance, informing the defendants that 'it. would ,be charged to them. In reply to this" defendants forwarded reasons for their refusal to accept liability, these being—(l). that Smith wan in' good health and quite able, to support his famly; (2) that Mrs Stath and the rest of the family enjoyed good health; (3) that two members of th© family, were over 14 years old, and should be assisting the father; (4) that even if the family were deserving or requiring assistance, and- likely to become ■ a charge, on. the defendants’ fund, the defendants should have been notified promptly, and not- seven months after .the plaintiffs had- commenced -tar give assistance. There was mo doubt ' in. this case, if it. were a ,propel case for. relief, the amount was reasonable, and . was expended in i, *, proper manner. The , following questions suggested themselves on the evidence:—Were the plaintiff board - justified in granting (a) temporary relief in the fi»»6 instance; -(b) in continuing .the .relief afte* receiving the formal application- in . which., it was stated that th© family- had. only been four months :• in the district without reference to the defendant board; (c) in continuing the relief after defendants? letter of July'lß? His Worship proceeded to point out that the County Council evidently roonsidered it a deserving case,- and he htjld that'the plaintiff board was justified in granting temporary ‘relief and in continuing it. His Worship also hold that there was no evidence to show that what was known to the'defendanf board was also known to the plaintiff board, and in his opinion the later acted honestly and bona fide, amid judgment would be given foi* plaintiffs, with costs (£2 14s 6d).