CHARGE OF VAGRANCY.

Otago Witness, Issue 3865, 10 April 1928, Page 36

CHARGE OF VAGRANCY.

THE STANDFIELD CASE. MAGISTRATE’S DECISIONANNOUNCED. The protracted investigation into the case of Elliott Standfield, aged 55 years, and an ex-inmate of the Benevolent Ini stitution, was brought to a close last week in the City Police Court, .when the Magistrate (Mr H. W. Bundle) dismissed the charge of vagrancy against him. The police were instructed to place the facts of the case before the Minister of Public Health. ' In this unusual court episode the chief -actors were the defendant, heavily-built and gray-haired, with close-cropped beard and moustache, Mr C. J. L. White, who appeared for him, and Mr H. C. Barrow tSoughj who represented the Dunedin Hospital and Charitable Aid Board. The case was brought on after many remands, the last of which was made for the purpose of allowing the board to reconsider its previous decision to debar Standfield from the Benevolent. Mr Barrowclough said that he was in possession of a letter from the secretary of the board, intimating the intention of that body to adhere to its previous deeiihon. A great deal of outside discussion had taker, place regard .ng th° case, he added, and he wished to reiterate his previous contention regarding Standfield’s ability to work. The Magistrate: It very often is the case that outside discussion is roused, Mr .Barrowclough. Mr Barrowelough continued that the discussion seemed to be based on the assumption that Standfield was unfitted, mentally, to work. The evidence of Dr de Lautour had been to that effect, but Dr de Lautour had seen and examined him for half an hour, and counsel would he astonished to learn that the doctor could form a definite conclusion about the man in that time, especially when Standfield knew that he was under observation. The dther’witness who had stated that Standfield was unfit for work was Captain Anderson, of the Salvation Army. Mr White: Captain Anderson had Standfield under observation .for two weeks.

After stating that he had considered the case very carefully, the Magistrate read his decision.

“ The defendant,” he said, “ stands charged with vagrancy. When the charge first came before me, I directed the police to request the health officer, if he saw fit, to make application to the court for the committal of the defendant to an institution, under the provisions of the Health Act. The charge of vagrancy was adjourned. Application was made by the health officer. The hearing of the vagrancy charge and the applications were taken together. Mr Barrowelough appeared on behalf of the Hospital Board, which objected to an order being made by the court under section 142 of the Health Act, and stated, that if such an order were made, the board would refuse admission to the defendant. lam of the opinion that the board is entitled to do so. The section was not intended to apply ,to a case such as that of the defendant, where there is contention as regards admission. It obviously is intended to apply to a person who in the public interest should be committed—usually against his own wishes. As the order merely declares that he is eligible ior reception to an institution, it does not bind the board to take him. The application for committal is struck out. I have some difficulty in dealing with the charge of vagrancy,” continued his Worship The board, in its wisdom, has decided that it will not receive Standheld back into the institution. Whether that decision is evidence of strength or a confession of weakness seems to me open to question The board has control of and is dealing with, persons physically and mentally infirm, and I think, should be able to exercise sufficient control over any such person, in the institution or in Iflm H v ay see fit t 0 l )lace 1 has been an inmate of the Benevolent Institution for 25 years “‘{L" a PP reei ating the boards diffitnlifv T d f allng + of his menfOt thlnk 14 can H e htl y ab- $ lUeif from responsibility. The '- wd . Klon to a. certafti extent is due th i e - board or ite PredeiTthA ?noM‘7 lng b ™ t 0 remain 80 long h» is i./w question of how c«t on thf be . dealfc £ith should not be east on toe police. He is not of the tfon 1 to woT H ’i S i. nabilit y or disinclinahas been fnci’ Y batever view be taken, ? as „ been . postered or strengthened by his