Patea R.M. Court.

Patea Mail, 16 September 1881, Page 3

Patea R.M. Court.

This Day, before J. B. Lysaght, Dr Croft, and R, O. Tennent, J.P.’s. DOCTOR’S FEE DISPUTED. Dr Keating sued C. Major, of Hawera, for three guineas, the amount of fee for reducing dislocated shoulder, resulting from accident in a Patea football contest. Defendant had paid one guinea into Court, and objected to the balance as excessive* He had got evidence taken at Hawerft by Commission ; one witness being Dr of Hawera, who had sworn that he had been in practice twenty years, and that the usual fee in a surgical case of this kind is one guinea. Dr Keating deposed that he is a duly qualified practitioner, and charges three guineas, four, or five, in a surgical case according to the nature of it, but would not charge for necessary attendances while the patient is under treatment. 3f he had to make attendances at some distance, he would probably charge for mileage and charge nothing for attendance. Referring to Dr Smith’s evidence as read, he said : All the doctors in the district— Drs Croft, Warren, and Richards, have told me that three guineas is the fee of the district in such a case.—Dr Smith had also written to plaintiff qualifying., his k.'l?b^ o^ . ’ Mr Barton, for defendant: Was Dr Smith on his oath when he gave that information ?

Dr Keating : I don’t think that is material. When Dr Smith was examined at Hawera, the defendant had his own lawyer present, and nothing was allowed to be brought out in my favor. Mr Barton : But was he on his oath ?

Dr Keating : lam fighting a pack of lawyers, and cannot answer that. Mr Hamerton, for plaintiff : That is the plaintiff’s ease. Mr Barton : Then I ask for a nonsuit

on the ground that, under the Medical Practitioners’ Act ’69, no person:shall be entitled to 'recover for medical Attendance,

medicine, &c., unless he shall prove oft the trial that he is registered* T I first oath he: uttered

was that he is a duly qualified prac- • :r ’\ • v - : '■ . . Mr-Bafforr; Not a : word of that was said.

. Mr Hamerton : The , Act is simply to . prevent interlopers from getting fees. » iThis:objection is trumpery, it Chairman : I don’t think that point shahid 'W raised, , ; . .'Mr Barton : But I dp raise it . They .have not proved that he. is registered, and his case is closed. We admit he is qualified, btit he has mot proved that he is registered, which he must do .before he

can recover. Mr Hamerton ; The Court has power to allow the -plaintiff to be recalled on the jjpint; 1 ~: : - ‘ 5 Mr Bai;tep this nonsuit point, and if witnesses are to be recalled, there never would be any nonsuit allowed. V Chairman ; : The bench is of opinion that 'the'fee'i? rather excessive; that two guineas would be, a fair charge ; and that

. the-costs ;shou!d be divided.iH i- Baftpn ; Has the Court ruled on my ’ nonsuit'? ... ~ : Chainsaa : ; :If you : like to raise a case i,;. for/appeal-i —’•■■■■ : -’Mk* Barton : The Act is distinct that we shall not recoverjinleas he has proved that v Re. is ' ’ “ Dr Croft : Why not. put in the register ? ' sMr.'Barton : He has not done so. He

has closed his case. Dr jjrqft V Then .why don’t you re:open

it? (Laughter*) . -Mr Barton * / When/ the plaintiff has closed bis cate he must stand or fall by it. • i; ThelD6nrt; decided, to recall the witness.

! r Witeatinjjjf box. | Mr Barton ; Before the Court asks any question, I must ask for a nonsuit. Chairman : You can argue that after. Mr Barton : No : there is a hole in the kettle, and I don’t want it to be mepded. .Chairman: Are you a duly registered practitioner ? Dr Keating v Yes, both in England and New Zealand. The Court eventually confirmed the previous decision, and ordered each party to pay his own costs. Mr Lysaght then left the bench. OLD ACCOUNTS--1 A* Stack v. F. MjcQuJre; ;Was a Claim for l. i 12s fidyadvelrtfsing and printing for a Hawera Bail way Committee, of which defendant was a member. Defence was that the account had been owing since ’7B, that defendant did not consider himself liable, and that he; had

heard, nothing of the claim since’7B until this year. Verdict for amount and costs, less 6s 8d charged for lawyer’s letter. A. Black v, Douglas, claim for LI 2s. Part had been paid to collector, and was admitted. Verdict for balance, 6s 6d and costs 9s, BOARD & LODGING. Irwin v. F. Taylor, amount £4 8. One week disputed. "Verdict for amount and costs, LOAN. MKenzie v.- M’Lean, claim $lO for loan to enable defendant to meet bill. Defendant had repudiated. Verdict for amount and costs. WAITOTARA. Fisher v, O’Neill, claim £3 10 for goods. Verdict for amount and costs. five pound Note. Caldwell v, Haywood, claim to recover balance of £5 note alleged to bo paid in error, Verdict for defendant. Evidence in this case will appear in next issue.