DOCTORS AT LAW.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19178, 8 December 1927, Page 2

DOCTORS AT LAW.

£2OOO DAMAGES CLAIMED.

ALLEGED FALSE REPRESENTATIONS.

* [THE PKESB Bpeclil Service.]

AUCKLAND, December 7

A dispute between two medical men over the sale of a practice at Takapuna wns the basis of an action heard before Mr Justice Reed in the Supreme Court to-day. Dr. William Arthur Alexander (Mr Fiddes) claimed £2OOO damages from Dr. Ernest James Millar (Mr Richmond) on the ground that a practice and house which he had bought from defendant at a total cost of £4500 were not as represented at the time of purchase. The defence was it general denial of the allegations. Dr. Alexander's wife, Mrs Linney Alexander, was joint plaintiff. The statement of claim was that in June of last year Dr. Alexander bought defendant's practice, and with it the house in Lake road, Takapuna. A sum of. £IOOO was paid for the practice and £3500 for the house- Plaintiffs alleged that Dr. Millar fraudulently represented that his average yearly income from the practice during 1922, 1923, 1924, and 1925 was £I4BB, that the average yearly number of midwifery cases was between 80 and 90, that the house had cost approximately £3500 the year before, and that he had to sell because his wife was seriously ill and would have to go to the Old Country. Dr. Alexander asserted that the actual yearly income averaged £938 instead of £I4BB, that the yearly number of midwifery cases was nearer 30 than 80, that the house cost approximately £SOO less than was represented, that it was in bad repair, and finally that Dr. Millar's representation as to his reason for selling the house and practioe was . false, in that defendant nad not gone Home, but started in practice at Royal Oak. Sir Fiddes said that Dr. Alexander had several interviews with Dr. Millar, but there was no thorough examination of the books. Dr. Millar refused to produce his income-tax returns. This, said Mr Fiddes, was because he dared not do so, as the production of details would destroy his case. About twelve months later plaintiff began to grow suspicious, and went through the books, : finding that the takings were approximately £IOOO a year, and not £ISOO. [ Ho also learned that the cost of the I house was about £3200.

Plaintiff gave evidence in support of his claim. Cross-examined by Mr Richmond, he said he was in practice at Tuakau before he bought Dr. Millar's house and practice. He averaged £73 a month for the nine months he was there. Witness complained that the books submitted to him by defendant did not fairly represent the amount of work done. A series of ticks were entered in the ledger to indicate calls made, and these ticks led him to believe that Dr. Millar wag doing at least a third more professional work than he actually was performing. Mr Richmond: Does not a doctor frequently make calls for which there is no charge? Witness: It all depends. Mr Richmond: If my doctor just calls in the moraine; and savs: ''Well how are you?" I don't expect him to make a charge.—You are luckv. nerlians. (Laughter.) His Honour: Suppose there are 20 ticks against the name of John Jones, docs that mean that you will charge him 20 guineas ?—Not necessarilv, s i r . Charges are made according to circumstances and the position of the patient. Further Questioned bv Mr Richmond, Dr. Alexander said he was of opinion that the entries in Dr. Mi], lar's books were made with deliberate intpnt to mislead him.

Further evidence for plaintiff was hfinrd, and the case was adjourned till to-morrow.