Law A
tions as
to
Report.
to local authorities and to the managers ol institu-
importance ruling given at the Abingdon Petty Sessional Court on 5th November, 1920, the place of residence of two mentally defective women, inmates of the or
was
Cumnor Rise Home for the Feeble-minded, Cumnor, Berkshire. The facts in both cases were very similar. One woman had been born in Reading, the illegitimate child of a mother who had returned to London immediately after her birth and had boarded her out in Reading until 190f, when she was 18? years old. She had then been removed to the Cumnor Rise Home and had been paid for there by her mother till 1916, since when the cost of her maintenance had been borne by the National Association for the Feeble-minded. The other woman, also an illegitimate child in respect of whom no bastardy order had been obtained, had been born in London in 1894, had entered the receiving house of the Church of England Waifs and Strays Society in November, 1904, after having previously been for short periods in the workhouse at Bow, had been transferred to various homes of the Society, at Southborne and at
STUDIES IN MENTAL INEFFICIENCY.
19
had been placed from the latter institution in two situations in Nottinghamshire for periods of four and eleven months respectively, returning after each to the Newark home, and eventually had been sent from that home to the Cumnor Rise Home where she had been maintained for a time from private sources which had since ceased to be available. Her mother had died in a London County Mental hospital in 1916, having been maintained there at the charge of a London union. In neither of these cases was action taken under the Mental Deficiency Act until 5th July, 1920, when petitions were presented to a judicial authority by an officer of the Board of Control for orders for the detention of both women in the Cumnor Rise Home at the charge of local authorities. The judicial authority made orders, and found that the defectives "resided" respectively in the County Borough of Reading and in the County of London, with the result that the charges for maintenance from the date of the orders would fall on the local authorities for those sreas. In reaching this conclusion he accepted arguments put forward on behalf of the local authority for Berkshire (who desired to resist a suggestion that the defectives had been ,,residing" in the Cumnor Rise Home), to the effect that that Home before it was certified as an institution under the Mental Deficiency Act, was a hospital within the meaning of section 1 of the Poor Removal Act, 1846, and that having regard to the cases of the Ormskirk Union v. Chorlton Union, 1903, (2 K.B. 498) and the Ormskirk Union v. Lancaster Union (27 J .P. 45), as the time during which the defectives had been inmates of the home was a time during which they could not acquire a place of residence within the meaning of the Act of 1846, it followed that they could not acquire a place of residence within the meaning of the Mental Deficiency Act and that consequently a case of doubt within the meaning of section 44, sub-section 4, of the Mental Deficiency Act had arisen and that the place of residence of each defective must be construed "as the County or County Borough, as the case may be, in which the person would, if he were a pauper, be deemed to have acquired a settlement within the meaning of the law relating to the relief of the poor." The attention of the judicial authority was directed to the case of the Kent County Council v. the London County Council (re Helen Law, 79 J.P. 486), and it was pointed out that in that case the Judges had expressed a doubt as to whether a "case of doubt" as mentioned in sub-section 4 of section 44 of the Mentally Deficiency Act could It was argued also on behalf of the local authority for London that ever arise. even if a case of doubt had arisen, sub-section 4 was only applicable to section 44 and not to section 43 under which the petition was presented. Reference was made also to the cases of the Stoke-on-Trent Borough Council v. Cheshire County Council (79 J.P. 402), and the Yorkshire West Riding County Council v. Colne Corporation (82 J.P. 14), and it Avas argued that residence under the Mental Deficiency Act meant the place where in fact the defective resided, which was clearly at the Cumnor Rise Home, in Berkshire. The judicial authority, however, decided that in each case there was a "case of doubt" within the meaning of section 44 (4) and that the defectives had acquired settlements in Reading and in London, respectively. Applications made by the Reading Town Council and by the London County Council under section 44 (3) of the Mental Deficiency Act, that the liability for maintenance of the two defectives should be transferred to the Berkshire County Council, were heard by the Petty Sessional Court at Abingdon on 5th November. The Justices by a majority decided that both defectives resided in Berkshire, and orders were made accordingly transferring the liability for maintenance. As the Berkshire County Council desired to appeal from this decision, the Abingdon Justices have stated a case for further decision by the High Court. The result of this appeal will be awaited with interest.
Newark,
tions as
to
Report.
to local authorities and to the managers ol institu-
importance ruling given at the Abingdon Petty Sessional Court on 5th November, 1920, the place of residence of two mentally defective women, inmates of the or
was
Cumnor Rise Home for the Feeble-minded, Cumnor, Berkshire. The facts in both cases were very similar. One woman had been born in Reading, the illegitimate child of a mother who had returned to London immediately after her birth and had boarded her out in Reading until 190f, when she was 18? years old. She had then been removed to the Cumnor Rise Home and had been paid for there by her mother till 1916, since when the cost of her maintenance had been borne by the National Association for the Feeble-minded. The other woman, also an illegitimate child in respect of whom no bastardy order had been obtained, had been born in London in 1894, had entered the receiving house of the Church of England Waifs and Strays Society in November, 1904, after having previously been for short periods in the workhouse at Bow, had been transferred to various homes of the Society, at Southborne and at
STUDIES IN MENTAL INEFFICIENCY.
19
had been placed from the latter institution in two situations in Nottinghamshire for periods of four and eleven months respectively, returning after each to the Newark home, and eventually had been sent from that home to the Cumnor Rise Home where she had been maintained for a time from private sources which had since ceased to be available. Her mother had died in a London County Mental hospital in 1916, having been maintained there at the charge of a London union. In neither of these cases was action taken under the Mental Deficiency Act until 5th July, 1920, when petitions were presented to a judicial authority by an officer of the Board of Control for orders for the detention of both women in the Cumnor Rise Home at the charge of local authorities. The judicial authority made orders, and found that the defectives "resided" respectively in the County Borough of Reading and in the County of London, with the result that the charges for maintenance from the date of the orders would fall on the local authorities for those sreas. In reaching this conclusion he accepted arguments put forward on behalf of the local authority for Berkshire (who desired to resist a suggestion that the defectives had been ,,residing" in the Cumnor Rise Home), to the effect that that Home before it was certified as an institution under the Mental Deficiency Act, was a hospital within the meaning of section 1 of the Poor Removal Act, 1846, and that having regard to the cases of the Ormskirk Union v. Chorlton Union, 1903, (2 K.B. 498) and the Ormskirk Union v. Lancaster Union (27 J .P. 45), as the time during which the defectives had been inmates of the home was a time during which they could not acquire a place of residence within the meaning of the Act of 1846, it followed that they could not acquire a place of residence within the meaning of the Mental Deficiency Act and that consequently a case of doubt within the meaning of section 44, sub-section 4, of the Mental Deficiency Act had arisen and that the place of residence of each defective must be construed "as the County or County Borough, as the case may be, in which the person would, if he were a pauper, be deemed to have acquired a settlement within the meaning of the law relating to the relief of the poor." The attention of the judicial authority was directed to the case of the Kent County Council v. the London County Council (re Helen Law, 79 J.P. 486), and it was pointed out that in that case the Judges had expressed a doubt as to whether a "case of doubt" as mentioned in sub-section 4 of section 44 of the Mentally Deficiency Act could It was argued also on behalf of the local authority for London that ever arise. even if a case of doubt had arisen, sub-section 4 was only applicable to section 44 and not to section 43 under which the petition was presented. Reference was made also to the cases of the Stoke-on-Trent Borough Council v. Cheshire County Council (79 J.P. 402), and the Yorkshire West Riding County Council v. Colne Corporation (82 J.P. 14), and it Avas argued that residence under the Mental Deficiency Act meant the place where in fact the defective resided, which was clearly at the Cumnor Rise Home, in Berkshire. The judicial authority, however, decided that in each case there was a "case of doubt" within the meaning of section 44 (4) and that the defectives had acquired settlements in Reading and in London, respectively. Applications made by the Reading Town Council and by the London County Council under section 44 (3) of the Mental Deficiency Act, that the liability for maintenance of the two defectives should be transferred to the Berkshire County Council, were heard by the Petty Sessional Court at Abingdon on 5th November. The Justices by a majority decided that both defectives resided in Berkshire, and orders were made accordingly transferring the liability for maintenance. As the Berkshire County Council desired to appeal from this decision, the Abingdon Justices have stated a case for further decision by the High Court. The result of this appeal will be awaited with interest.
Newark,
