R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 102, 8 April 1884, Page 2

R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Before J. Booth, Esq., R.M.) TUESDAY. adjourned. Stevens v. Locke. Adjourned on the application of plaintiff until the 18th instant— Humphreys v. Fryer, and Fryer v. Humphreys. Adjourned until the 9th inst. A. J. COOPER V. KYDD. Claim £2 7s. 6d. for goods supplied and work done. Judgment for amount claimed, and costs 14s. MACNAB V. FRkNCIS. Claim £3B on a promissory note. Mr. E. ff. Ward for plaintiff. The defendant’s brother appeared and confessed judgment. Costs, £3 14s. POLLEN V. HALL. Claim £5O for medical attendance. Mr. Kenny for plaintiff and Mr. Finn for defendant. Mr. Finn submitted that the particulars of the plaint did not comply with the provisions of the R.M. Act, by not supplying a full and explicit statement, It did not say how many

times a day the plaint* ff called, or how much he charged for each ct’l, and it did not give any dates. Mr. Kenny submitted that the paiciculars were full and explicit. AU along the defendant had only disputed the amount, which he stated was too much, and not the visits. His Worship thought the particulars were sufficient. Dr. Pollen gave evidence to the effggttliat he had attended defendant when suffering from rheumatic fever, and him a number of times. He had his diary with him, which showed that the first visit was on the 15th October. He attended him fourteen times in one week, and then piktfejfn times, and so on, many of these were night visits. He had been attending him as late f as one or two o’clock in the morning. Ten shillings and sixpence was the charge for an ordinary day visit, and one guinea for a night visit. Defendant had refused to pay more than £25. To Mr, Finn—Defendant had told him that he would give £25 to settle his (plaintiff’s) claim. Did not know the exact date he sent in his account. Would contradict defendant if he stated that he did not attend him, till the 17th. Had never paid any unnecessary visits. Had been on visits all hours of the night. Had not charged 2s. for each of those visits, had lumped them. Did not remember defendant’s wife calling at the chemists shop and complaining of his not visiting her husband, F. Hall deposed—That the defendant first visited him on the 17th October and continued to do so until January. When he got the bill produced, had a conversation with Dr. Pollen, and told him that it was a rather large charge, and did not know how he could meet it. . Told the doctor he would give £25 to square both accounts between them, plaintiff would not agree to this. Was confined to bed for about ten weeks, and after that was walking about the streets. Never dared the doctor to bring this case into Court. To Mr. Kenny—Remembered the Doctor saying he would take £lO off if he (witness) would sign the bill. Mr. Finn said, after hearing the evidence he would be willing to take a judgment for £4O. That is £5O, less the £lO, as promised by the plaintiff, Mr. Kenny said this case was one of principle. The defendant had elected to come there and defend the case, as he had done, and he must, therefore, take the consequences. Mr. Finn said he would then withdraw his offer. His Worship said the charge was only Bs. 3d. a visit, and he thought it was very reasonable. He did not think it right to interfere with professional men. Mr. Kenny said that the plaintiff would not press the defendant if a judgment was given. Judgment was entered up for the amount claimed, and costs £3 7s. (Left sitting.)