THE STANDFIELD CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3912, 5 March 1929, Page 17

THE STANDFIELD CASE.

CONSIDERED BY HOSPITAL BOARD.

FURTHER RELIEF REFUSED.

In December last, the question of charitable aid for Elliott Standfield came before the Otago Hospital Board, and after some discussion it was agreed* that he should be granted relief at the rate of 10s per week for three months, afterwhich period the case could be reviewed. The matter was again considered by the Benevolent Committee at its last meeting, when it was decided’that no further relief be granted to Standfield, and in its report submitted last week to the board the committee recommended accordingly. On Mr J. W. Scurr (chairman of the Benevolent Committee) moving the adoption of the report, Mr G. Gallaway moved as an amendment that the clause reporting that further relief to Elliott Standfield had been declined, be r ferred back to the committee. He admitted that the case of Standfield was a difficult one. He did not consider the uan should be readmitted to the Benevolent Institution, but it seemed to him that it was the duty of the board to do something for him. _t was responsible to a certainextent for present condition, by keeping him so long in the Benevolent Institution. Why it had done so had never been satisfactorily explained. The board should accept its own responsibilities.

Miss Runciman seconded the amendment. She did not think that Standfield could not work, but she thought something might be done for him if only to encourage him to do something for himself.

The chairman (Mr W. E. S Knight) said he sympathised with Standfield, more especially as it was now impossible for him to get work. No one wanted him. Previously he had had no sympathy at al! with Standfield, who had showed a very poor spirit in having been content, to allow the board to keep him for so long, but to-day he was honestly sympathetic. Mrs Ross - Why don’t the police take him and do their job. “ The man is not entitled to any sympathy,” said Mr J. W. Dove, who went on to say that he knew of a case where Standfield had been offered a job to mow a lawn, but had declared that he could not manage it before he even tried it. This was a job a 15-year-old girl could do, and if Wandfield would not try it why should the boasd keep him? Mr A. Quelch said the fact remained that no one would be bothered employing Standfield. He thought the board might give him. say, 10s a week to help to keep him in food. It would be cheaper, to do this than to keep him in the institution.

Mr Scurr, in reply, drew attention to the. fact that Standfield had been examined by the medical superintendent, who had reported that he was physically strong and fit for work.

Mr Gallaway: Then why di 1 you keep him for 25 years'? Mr Scurr: I am not responsible for that. ■ There was evidence, Mr Scurr said, that Standfield had been offered light work, and was not willing to take it. When a woman with a family dependent on. her applied to the board, for relief she was asked what work she could do. Why should this not be the case with a big. strong, able-bodied man? The amendment was put to the meeting, and was lost, the motion being carried.