CHARITABLE AID BOARD.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6284, 15 September 1898, Page 1

CHARITABLE AID BOARD.

A meeting of the Charitable Aid Board «was held yesterday; present — Messrs B. Weßtenra (chairman), A. ChalmeTß, J. Wallace, F. J. Board, W. Prudhoe, K. Uennie, W. Acton- Adams, W. Dunlop, J. Hamilton, W. Boag, J. T. 'Smith and C. J. Harper. Apologies for absence were receivied from "Messrs Manhire, Dobson and Reid. The Chairman stated the present posi■tion of the Samaritan Home dispute, and said that, with Mr Harper, he had interviewed the Minister at Wellington. He briefly referred to the business before the (Board. A letter was read from Messrs -Stringer and Cresswell intimating that unless the Board complied with the requisition for .£2OO for the Samaritan Home they would bring the matter before the Supreme Court. A lengthy discussion ensued. Finally notice of motion was given to the effect that the Board, without withdrawing from the position already taken tip of insisting upon its proper representation upon the board of management of the Samaritan Home, should yield to legal pressure and should forward the monthly payments claimed. -It was resolved that the Board should, join in opposing a petition for forming apart of the Riccarton Road District into a borough. : Consideration of. a communication from the Women's Christian Temperance 'Union was held over till a future meeting which -will be specially called. -The accounts as audited were passed, by the Board, and the Clerk was instructed to have them printed and distributed. A letter was read from the Audit-Inspec-tor stating that as the Board had for some time been paying burial fees out of its funds, he -would call its attention to Section 22 of the Cemetery Act, 1882, which makes it compulsory for the trustees of any cemetery to permit the burial of ipoor persons free of charge, provided an order is first obtained from a Justice of the Peace. He would point out that no such item as burial fees should appear in the Board's accounts. It was resolved that the opinion of the Board's solicitor should be obtained as to the reading of the section. A letter was read from the Progressive Liberal -Association, requesting 'the Board to re-consider its decision to compel an old couple to go into the Home at Woolston. The letter was received. The Institutions Committee reported that twenty-six new inmates .had been admitted to the Memorial Home at Woolston, which had been inspected- on Monday last by the committee, and several other members of the Board, besides representatives of the Diamond Jubilee Committee, and of the Press. The Home <had been found to be in a highly -satisfactory condition, and the inmates generally expressed their appreciation of the excellent home provided for them. The Ashburton Home Committee had had occasion to consider, the need for some additional provision for temporary and urgent cases arising at the Home, some of which it was. thought might best be met by. acquiring a separate cottage, but after consideration it had "been considered more advisable to mafee a small addition, by way of extension of the infirmary quarters, and the committee therefore asked for authority to procure tenders for a building about 30ft .x 20ft. The Home had recently been connected with the Telephone (Exchange. The •Finance Committee had had placed before it a. bill of costs rendered to the trustees of the Samaritan Home by their solicitors in connection with the Commission of Inquiry, -which the Board -was. asked, to pay. "Whilst acknowledging that the charges might be quite reasonable as between solicitor and client, the committee could not recognise them as " costs of the inquiry," seeing that no award was made by the Commission. The committee, however, was prepared to recommend the Board to offer in full satisfaction of such claim, the fees charged in rthe bill for counsel's attendance at the inquiry (.£l4 145.) The report as a whole was adopted. The Clerk read a letter from Dr Clayton, in -which he complained of interference in .a case to which he wa3 required to attend. The letter was as follows : — " I have to report as follows : — On August 22 1 attended Mrs Howell. Sydenham, in response to an order from the Board. She was suffering severely from quinsy, nervous prostration and general debility. On August 26 I thought it necessary to order port wine. Thiß was supplied by your Board, and, as I am informed by Mrs Howell, confiscated by a Mr Taylor on the same day or the next. I have seen Mrs Howell again to-day, «nd I enclose her signed statement -with regard to the wine incident. I must asE yoa to represent very strongly to the Board that I will not allow Mr Taylor oi anybody else to meddle with me in this impertinent way. So long as the Board permits me to use my own discretion in these matters, I must expect that the Board will, as far as possible, protect me froai the mischievous, if not dangerous interference of fanatical outsiders. In tht meantime the bottle of port wine remains in the possession of Mr Taylor, who cannot possibly have any claim to it. I woulc respectfully suggest that the Board takf prompt measures for its recovery. Undei the circumstances I was obliged to ordei another bottle for the patient. Geoff. S Clayton." The following is a copy of the signed statement of Mrs Howell referred to by Dr Clayton in his report:— "'August 29, 1898. To Dr Clayton— J wish to inform you that I did not at anj time during my present illness refuse tc take the port wine which you ordered foi me, and that it was taken away from me ■without my consent. I should be glad tc have it new. — Esther Howell." The Clerk explained the position of tbi Board on the matter, and the action he liad taken, and Mr Smith stated Mr Taylor's view of the csse. After a lengthy discussion, it was resolved that the action oi Dr Clayton ghould be endorsed. Thi3 concluded the business.