TARANAKI SCHOLARSHIP,

Taranaki Daily News, 20 December 1933, Page 4

TARANAKI SCHOLARSHIP,

SUCCESS OF GIRL’S CLAIM

RESIDENTIAL QUALIFICATION. DECISION OF SUPREME COURT. HER ELIGIBILITY ESTABLISHED. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night The meaning of the word “residence” and the eligibility of Gwendoline Mary Avery to hold a Taranaki Scholarship were decided in favour of the young woman in a reserved judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Blair in the Supreme Court to-day. The plaintiff, Miss Avery, was a boarder at the New Plymouth Girls’ High School, who left the district only to go to her parents’ home for the holidays. She passed the University Entrance Scholarship examination “with credit” and claimed that she was there-, fore entitled to a Taranaki scholarship, which is awarded only to those resident in the province. The claim was contested by the University of New Zealand on the ground that she was not legally a resident of the province. In the course of a long judgment his Honour stated that there were only two portions of the statute governing the scholarship which were relevant. These were the words ‘‘for the purpose of bringing higher education within the reach of deserving scholars within the Taranaki provincial district,” and the words “open to all candidates who have resided and -attended a school within the district.” The plaintiff was a “deserving scholar” jnasmuch as she had passed the necessary examination, and she certainly was “within the Taranaki provincial district” seeing that all her schooling had taken place there. She was thus within the general description of the class of scholar for whom the scholarships were established. RESIDED AT NEW PLYMOUTH. The next question was whether she had “resided” at as .well as attended a school at New Plymouth. Her parents did not reside there. For by far the greater part of the years prior to her qualifying by examination she had lived in the school hostel at New Plymouth and was away only during the holidays. If there had been no school holidays one might take it that she would have lived in the hostel all the time. , If a child was to be assumed constructively to be residing with her parents when she spent all her school time at a boarding school it would be difficult to say where she resided if her parents were separated and the child spent half her holidays with each parent. It had been pointed out in defence that if boarding school residence was a sufficient qualification it would be competent for parents resident out of Taranaki to send their children to a recognised boarding school in Taranaki for the necessary period and thus qualify them from the point of view of the Taranaki boarding schools. His Honour doubted if those considerations had . any weight. Boarding schools did not usually. complain of an excess of pupils, and if that desirable position were to arise there was a simple remedy. Schools generally advertised their pupils’ successes in examinations, and pupils promising enough to qualify for competitive scholarships were not frowned upon by school authorities. “If a child attends a Taranaki. school for the requisite period and lives in Taranaki as well, even if that living is as a boarder at a school, the scholar’s residence is in Taranaki,” said his Honour. “The statute makes the candidate’s residence, not the residence of the candidate’s parents, the test, and if the residence of the candidate’s parents had been the qualification it would have been easy to have made the point clear in the statute.”

The answer to the point that the break of residence constituted by the school holidays destroyed the continuity' of residence required by the statute was that there was always the intention to return to the school as soon as the residence there was available.

The plaintiff was allowed £lO 10s costs and disbursements.