CHARITABLE AID.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 56, 20 October 1911, Page 6

CHARITABLE AID.

BOARDS DISAGREE. (Per Press Association ) Dunedin, October 19. In the Magistrate’s Court to-day, before Mr Widdowson, S.M., the Otago Hospital and Charitable Aid Board claimed from the Southland Hospital and Charitable Aid Board £2l, being the amount expended by the Otago Board in providing charitable aid for Mrs J. W. Smith (Fairfax) and her haniily for 42- weeks,- from" November I4th, 1910, to September 4th, 1914, at 10s a week. The action was taken under section 72 of the Hospital and Charitable Institutions Act, 1909, which provides: “That when a person receives relief from or at the expense of a hospital and charitable aid board at any time before lie lias resided in the district of that board fot one year immediately prior to the granting of that relief, the board may recover cost of relief so granted to that person as a debt due by the board in whose district he last resided for a period of two years at any time prior to the granting of that relief, whether he was still resident in that district or not at the time relief was granted.” Counsel for the plaintiff hoard said there was no agreement between the boards; therefore the Court must hold that what the plaintiff board had done was reasonable. When approached, the Southland Board wrote declining responsibility, and saying the ;ease was not one for charitable aid. On that date relief was stopped. Later, however, it was found necessary to continue relief, notwithstanding the refusal of the Southland Board, which also declined to allow the case to he sent to the Inspector-General for arbitration. Another matter had arisen; This was a question that there are two sons in the family, who arc deemed to lie able to support the family. The Otago Board considered that the Southland Board ought to take proceedings in the matter.

Counsel for the defence said the Southland Board defended the claim as a protest against the haphazard' and slipshod methods of the Otago Board. He said payments made from time to time included a number of payments en bloc, and it was evident the Otago Board did not consider the applicants at I 'all. Decision was reserved.

THE MOKAU INQUIRY

THE GOVERNMENT VINDICATED (Per Press Association.) Wellington, October 19. The report of the inquiry regarding the transactions of the Government in connection with the Mokau-Moha-katino blocks was presented by the chairman of the Native Affairs Committee tliis afternoon. The committee prefaced its report with a summary of the statement made in the House some weeks ago by Sir James Carroll, then ActingPrime .Minister, and the statement made by Mr Massey at the opening of tbo inquiry. The committee found that the statement of Sir James Carroll correctly set out the facts relating to the Government’s association with tho transaction. Mr Massey’s statement correctly sots out tine facts referred to by him, and is in agreement with tho statement of the Government, except as to three minor matters, viz: (I) He• suggested that tho limitation provisions of the Native Act were avoided by the Ordor-in-Council, whereas in fact tho Ordcr-iu-Council was issued in accordance with such limitation provisions. (2) The statement to the effect that a meeting of native owners was not properly representative was disproved (3) The statement to the effect that tho company or members of the company will possess practically a monopoly of tho coal-bearing areas on the west_ coast of the Taranaki provincial district was disproved. “The only additional facts which the committee deems it necessary to refer to,” the report continues, “are that the lessee finally acquired the • interest of the natives in the blocks for the sum of £25,000 in cash and

the sum of £2500 in fully-paid up shares iu a company having 1 a capital of £ LUO,OOO, formed to acquire the Mokaii-Mohakatino blocks, and other properties. Herman Lewis, mo lessee, sold Ml his interests in the Mo-k.iu-ivioiiukafcino blocks (excepting an area of about 7000 acres which are subject to certain sub-leases to Mason Uiiimnois) lor Hie sum of £, 1,000 m cash and £4OOO in fully-paid up shares in the company. Too company purchased from Mason Chambers, pacing in cash and shares in its c..piuu cue sum of £BS,OUU. Ihe sum paid to the lurches for their interest in the land was greater than the actual value of the interests, of the natives burdened with leases. Assuming toe purchase money obtained bv the lessee to be .no true value of the block, suggestions were made before the committee vciiccting upon certain departmental ‘officers concerned in this transaction, but the committee is satisfied that fhes-M'suggestions were entirely disproved.”:? .