A DOCTOR’S PRACTICE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 8 December 1927, Page 9

A DOCTOR’S PRACTICE

ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION. SUPREME COURT ACTION. Auckland, Dec. 7. A dispute between two medical men over the sale of a practice at Takapuna was the basis of an action heard before Mr. Justice Reed, in the Supreme Court to-day. Dr. Wil liam Arthur Alexander (Mr. Fiddes) claimed £2OOO damages from Dr. Ernest James Millar (Mr. Richmond) on the ground that a practice and a house which he bought from defendant, at a total cost of £4500, were not as represented at the time of purchase; The defence was a 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, Takauna. The sum of £lOOO was paid for the practice and £3500 for the house. Plaintiff alleged that Dr. Millar fraudulently represented that his average yearly income from the practice during 1922. 1923, 1924 and 1925 was £1488; that his 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 average £9B® instead of £1488; that the yearly number of midwifery cases was nearer 30 than 80: that the house cost approximately £5OO less than represented; that, it was in bad repair; and, finally, that Dr. Millar’s representation as to his reason selling the house and practice was false, in th?.t defendant had not gm Home, but bad started practice at Royal Oak. Dr. Alexander, in cross-examina-tion. said he was of the opinion the entries in Dr. Millar’s hooks were made with deliberate intent to mislead him.

Evidence for the plaintiff was not concluded when the Court adjourned for the day.