HELENSVILLE S. M. COURT

Kaipara and Waitemata Echo, 23 September 1915, Page 3

HELENSVILLE S. M. COURT

FRIDAY, SEPT. 17TH., 1915

(Before Mr E. Page, S.M.')

AT the Helensville Magistrate's Court, held on Friday last, there were two or three cases of a somewhat interesting nature. THE DOCTOR'S ACCOUNT Dr. Phippin sued William Millward for £5 8s 6d, balance of fees vfor medical attendance. Mr Beale appeared for Dr. Phippen, and Mr Field for Mr Millward. Mr Beale, in opening his case, stated that the claim was an ordina'ry one for medical attendance for which ordinary moderate fees were charged, but tbe defendant apparently thought that no doctor should receive more than 5s for a visit, and had paid that amount into Court. Mr Field called the attention of the Court to the fact that the statement of claim did not give the full particulars required by the Act, but his client had done his best to the number of visits actually made and had paid in accordingly. The plaintiff, in the course of his evidence, stated he had paid one more visit than defendant had counted, and showed that his charges were based upon 7s 6d a visit, except in one case of a midnight visit for which he charged 10s.

The plaintiff was then subjected to a vigorous cross-examination by Mr Field who contended that he was entitled to show, if he could, that the plaintiff had been negligent or unskilful, and if he could show this the doctor would not be entitled to recover anything by common law.

Mr Beale contended that the payment into Court was an admission of the liability.

Mr Field argued that he had paid in as he was entitled to with a denial of liability, and whether the Court could, or could not, decide that the plaintiff was not entitled to lift the amount paid in, yet he was entitled, to endeavour to establish negligence or unskilfulness on the ground that if he could prove the plaintiff was not entitled to anything then a portion, he was not entitled to a greater amount than the amount paid in.

The Magistrate, Mr E. Page, upheld Mr Field's contention.

Mr Field asked what the doctor's diagnosis of the case was.

The doctor declined to answer, and a further legal argument arose as to whether the question should he answered.

On the Magistrate ruling that it should, the doctor said he diagnised it as toxic meningitis. Questioned as to his treatment, he could not remember what drugs he had used, but he might have used milk and brandy. He had never seen it administered ; he was a medical man, not a nurse. The parents had told him the child took the food alright. He knew it was unconscious to semi-

unconscious for some days; an unconscious person conld swallow, He was not aware the child choked or coughed each time food was administered ; had the parents told him so, he would have adopted another treatment, probably rectal administration; it was not necessary to feed an unconscious person through a stomach tube; if brandy and milk got in and lodged in a person's lungs pneumonia might he caused, but most likely not, as the person could cough it back. He did not know that the certificate of death given by Dr. Meinhold mentioned tuberculous meningitis and pneumonia. He would expect pneumonia to supervene, it almost invariably did in the case ot meningitis. He denied that he had increased his charges to defendant on account of the latter having gone to Dr Meinhold.

The defendant, in his evidence, said he had gone to Dr. Phippen for treatment and the doctor had promised to charge him only 5s a visit. When he called the doctor in to see his child, he did not say anything about charging him on a higher scale, and he naturally concluded it was still 5s a visit. The cnild got worse, and his brother-in-law called in Dr Meinhold. Defendant had then called on Dr Phippin and told him Dr Meinhold had been called in and was going to treat the child. Dr Phippen got very angry, and said he would send in his bill next rooming and would "stick it on to him." The bill came next morning, and he had written the doctor, paying 10s on account and saying he would pay off the account by instalments. He received the bill while his child was dying. The child coughed pretty well every time the milk and brandy were administered.

Mr Page, in giving judgment, stated that though negligence had been suggested it had not been proved. In any case, it would be impossible to prove such without outside medical testimony. He did not consider the charges made were in themselves excessive, but as an arrangement had been made to charge 5s a visit to defendant himself, he was entitled to expeGt, in the absence of notice to contrary, the same charge would be made in respect tq his family, Dp Phippen had not notified him of any increased charge, and therefore judgment would be for 5s a visit and 10s for special night visit. No costs were allowed, A SMALL. CLAIM Frost v. Fulton.—Mr Field for plaintiff, Mr Beale for defendant.. Claim, £3 ss. After a somewhat lengthy hearing, judgment was given for plaintiff for £3 and costs, • CLAIM FOP* RATES Helensville Town goavd v. Stewart Bros. Ltd. —Mr Buttle for plaintiffs, Mr Field for defendant. Claim for rates. In addition to some minor points, some of which were decided in fayour of

plaintiff and some for defendant, the main items in dispute were two claims for rates in respect of a site called the " railway site," and one in respect of part of Te Rewarewa Block, which defendants stated were charged in errorMr Field pointed out there was an old entry ,in the valuation roll under Nos, 12 and 12a by which defendants were charged as on values of £350 and £125 respectively, valuations absurdly in excess of" real values. But by a later valuation the two pieces were entered together under number 364 as £120 —a reasonable valuation. The Court stated that if the properties were really one and the same, the rates could not be charged on both.. These cases would be adjourned. The same course was taken with regard to the Rewarewa Block, which Mr Stewart stated neither he nor' his firm had ever owned. POLICE CASES For failing to attend their drill, under the Defence Act 1909 :— Henry J. E. Norton was convicted and fined £1, and costs 7s, Bert Hart, convicted and fined 10s and oosts 7s. H. Burdett, convicted and fined 10s and costs. ; Sergt.-Major Baritroa appeared for the Defence Department. A number of similar cases will come on next Court. CIVIL CASES. Judgment was given by default, with costs, for the plaintiff in the following cases :— Stewart Bros. Ltd. v. Aperaniko, £4 4s G. F. Braithwaite v. J. M. Todd, £6 ss. Stewart Bros. Ltd. v. E. Luttrell, £lls7d. E. Frost v. R. Wicham, £3 3s 7d. Stewart Bros. Ltd. v. Geo. Snook, £36 2s lOd.

E. S. Masters v. W. Whitika, £9 17s 3d. E. S. Masters v. E. Kay, £1 Bs. W. Pulham and Son v J. Cox, £9 Os 3d. F. Mackenzie v E. Tassell, 19s. Helensville A. and P. Ass'n v. Scott Gollan, £2. Stewart Bros. Ltd. v. R. Kelly, £3 lis Bd.

A number of Helensville Town Board cases for rates were adjourned till next Court, when it is expected there will be a map showing the different sections.

James Hand, of Helensville, was granted a land agent's license.

The next sitting of the S.M. Court will be held on the 27th October.