RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3016, 18 October 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tins Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., 11.M.)

Civil Cases. Dr Docking v. M'Nair was a claim for LlB IBs fid, balance of account for medical services rendered to the defendant s family. Mr E. Cook a poured for the plaintiff; Mr Harris for the defendant, who paid L 5 18s fid into Court, and disputed the balance of tho claim. The plaintiff, in his evidence, stated that he acted as medical adviser to the defendant’s family, and from -January to April professionally attended his family, who suffered at different times from colonial fever, scarlet fever, typhus fever, neuralgia, toothache, Ac, For the most of those visits 10s fid each was charged, but when he was called for specially higher charges were made. The cross-examination was conducted as follows :—Did you know Mrs M'Nair before your visit to her iu January?—l am not positive ; I might have seen her before. Can vou state how many times out of the whole of the visits charged for you were sent for to attend the family ?—1 do not pretend to say. How long did each of the visits last? I sec on the 7th of January you charge for attending Mrs M'Nair, her daughter Anne, and the youngest child LI Us fid. How long did you remain on that occasion?—-Possibly quarter of an hour. Possibly ten minutes ? 1 was never there so short a time, but often stayed much longer than quarter of an hour. Vou used to take refreshments there J—l believe so. So much so believe, that eventually you were requested to discontinue your visits?—No, Jt was found that you visited the house too frequently?— No. I believe you supplied the necessary medicines yourself?— Yes. I presume you carried them about with you ? Not always. Medicine is not the only thing required ; but 1 generally came provided with such remedies as I thought the case reropuired. The infinitt-semal dose business ? No. Were you not requested to discontinue your visits; and did you not then state that yon were pfton passing that way, and would not neglect to call in ip a friendly >va y?—No such remark was ever made on my part or on thci'S, About the tooth drawing process. Was it at yours or Mrs M'Nair’s suggestion that it was drawn? I don’t know. But it was more than likely that it was by my advice. Do you remember her calling at your establishment one morning and requesting you to render your account?—l don’t remember anything of the kind. Did- you not then speak to her about her having such a lino sot of teeth ?—I am not aware of having mentioned anything of the sort. And that

she replied that her teeth were good, with the exception of a decayed one ; that you then requested her to let you see it ? -I don’t think it was so ; she was most probably suffering from neuralgia. Did you not tell her it wanted stopping ; that yon had never had an opportunity of doing her a kindness before ; that you would stop it for her; and that in attempting to do so you broke it, thus rendering its extraction necessary ? No. You say those people were suffering from fever from January to April ?—Yea Why then the discontinuance of your visits from 25 January to February 3?— Simply because the fever was then in abeyance. You did not call between February 5 and February 21 : was the fever in abeyance then?—No; but I left such a quantity of medicine to be taken in the interval as to render it unnecessary for me to call again. Did the colonial or scarlet fever result from your leaving such a quantity of medicine to be taken ? -No, The doctor further stated that ihe whole of the visits charged for were made ; and that defendant had offered him LlO in full settlement, which he declined to accept. The defence was that Dr Docking’s visits were only made professionally for a short time : that when they were unrequired, he offered to continue them in a friendly way ; that he took meals with the family ; and it was understood he gave his services gratuitously. Judgment was given for L 7 17s 6d, each side to pay its own costs. Reid v. Hatfield.—Claim of L7O for wrongfully refusing to deliver certain goods shipped on board the Napier, said money being demurrage which plaintiff had to pay for the charter of the Pakeha. Mr Harris for defendant, G. F, Reid, Captain Gorm, and James Gorm were examined. Judgment for L 63, the actual amount of demurrage paid, together with costs.