S.M. Court.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 8194, 22 May 1906, Page 5

S.M. Court.

PALMEESTON—TUESDAY. (Before Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M.) CIVIL CASES. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs, was entered in the following undefended cases :— F. Pawson (Mr Y. Baldwin) v. C. Groves, £2 Bs, costs and fee 10s ; Carter and Kawstron (Mr Hankins) v. R. C. Cheesman, £7 13s 9d, costs and fee 33s Gd; F. Stevens v. W. Brand,£2l7s lid, costs ss; G. Allman (Mr Innes) v. L. Jr'Stent, $9 13s 9d, costs and fee 35s Gd; U.F.C.A. (Mr Hankins) v. E. O'Neill, £20 8s 3d, costs and fee £2 14s; C. E. Harden v. Mrs B. M. Cannutti, £6 6s, costs 8s (against separate estate) ; U.F.C.A. iMr Hankins) v. F. H. Paap, £6 8s Gd, costs and fee 23s 6d; same v. H. Broderick, £19 5s 7d, costs and fee 30s 6d ; li. Simmons (Mr Wither) v. E. Butler, £2 9s 3d, costs and fee 395. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. E. Newbigin (Mr Cooper) v. O. McWilliams, £15 7s 6d. Order made for payment forthwith, in default fourteen days' imprisonment. Nash and Co. v! F. Goodwin, £5 17s Gd. Order made, in default seven days'. DEFENDED CASES. Taggart and Harman (Mr Meatyard) v. C. Imrie (Mr Innes), claim £2 7s Gd, balance due on charges for dental services. The full charge ior the work was £6 Is and the duration of the work done was thirteen hours, according to counsel for the plaintiffs, who also said the total charge was less than would have been made in the larger towns. V. E. Harman, one of the plaintiffs, said defendant came to him in August, 1904. Dental work that had been commenced previously had not been completed, and on investigation witness found the work improperly done. He detailed the work he did to make

matters right. He said he considered the Icharges for gold-filling two teeth were fair and reasonable. The charge for a Richmond crown, £210s, was also fair and reasonable. Thirteen hours were kept in appointments with defendant, and there was also work in the workroom to be done. The claim was not so much for the amount still due as for the principle involved. JNo complaints had been received by him as to the work he had done. Cross examined:—Witness was aware that Mr Prouse bad been previously employed by defendant. Mr Prouse was a qualified dentist. By the Court: —There were three teeth treated, witness detailing the work done to each. Cross-examination continued :—There were two gold fillings, a root filling and a Richmond crown. He did not know that the usual charge here for a Richmond crown was £2 2s. That sum was the lowest charge. Charges of £8 3s were sometimes made, the foe being based on the circumstances of the work. R. Y. Lloyd, dentist, said he considered the charges made were very fair for the work done. They were the usual charges in this district. Cross-examined: He had put on Richmond crowns, but so few that he could not remember the name of a patient. The charge for the crown was fair. He had made vulcanite sets for £2 10s. The smallest charge for a gold filling was los, ordinary 21s. The charge depended on the gold used in the work. Thomas G. Stockwell, dentist, considc.ed the charges quite fair and reasonable and what he would charge. It was difficult for a man to judge as to price after work was done, but knowing the duration of the work he thought he charge fair and reasonable.

Cross examined: —He had qualified about 18 months ago. He had doae a lot of crown work and for the crown in question he had for the last two years not charged less than £2 2s. That fee would cover a case requiring uo special treatment. If the case was septic as he understood this case was, the charge would be according to the work done. Mr Innes uaid the case was a question as to whether the charges were fair and reasonable. The defence was that they were in excess, and the amount paid by defendant was a fair and reasonable sum for the work. Defendant, in her evidence, said that all the preliminary work had been done by Mr Prouse prior to witness going to the plaintiff. The teeth were all perfectly healthy. Witness was certain the nerves had been extracted. She was sure plaintiff had not to extract any portion of the nerves. She had

made enquiries elsewhere, and had found that the charges made were excessive. The amount she had paid was in accordance with the usual fees for the work done. Cross-examined —She had not written to the plaintiffs complaining of the charge when she received the account, but made enquiries. Her receipt was endorsed "on account." She did not complain then. W. A. Prouse, dentist, said defendant's teeth had not been badly decayed but were very sensitive. Witness detailed the work he had done and-said he had only put m preparatory root fillings. He made an antiseptic dressing and could not understand how the teeth became septic. He had never heard of separate charges for root filling and a Richmond crown. They were one operation and the whole charge should not have been more than £2 2s, includ-" ing all work necessary, two and a half guineas at the outside. He knew of nothing particular about defendant's case. The lowest price for gold fillings was about 15s, but it all depended upon the class of work. He thought a charge of guineas would be a fair charge for root and gold filling of one tooth. He thought £4 16s would be a fair charge for the whole work done, gold filling crown Hgns, and gold filling 15s. Cross-examined: —He got sufficient work to keep two men going here. It was possible for septic matter to get into the teeth, but. he was surprisod. If the teeth were septic they would require special treatment. By the Court: —£6 Is was not an excessive charge for 13 hours' work; sometimes it was a question of bow much a patient could pay. F. W. Bond, dentist, thought the charge should be gauged by the time taken to do the work. He thought if 13 hours were taken the charge was a fair one. Mr Innes said he could not proceed any further in the face of his own witnesses.