DOCTOR’S CLAIM FROM FELLOW PRACTITIONER

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 221, 7 December 1927, Page 13

DOCTOR’S CLAIM FROM FELLOW PRACTITIONER

CHARGE OF FRAUD REGARDING SALE OF TAKAPUNA PRACTICE

A DISPUTE between two medical practitioners over the sale of a practice and a claim for £2,000 damages formed the basis of an unusual case heard by Mr. Justice Reed in the Supreme Court this morning. The plaintiffs were William Arthur j Alexander, physician and surgeon, and his wife, Llnney Alexander, of Takapuna, and the defendant, Ernest James Millar, surgeon, of Royal Oak. Mr. H. W. Fides appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. Richmond for the defendant. It was claimed by Dr. Alexander that in June of last year he bought Dr. Millar’s practice and house at Lake Road, Takapuna, for an inclusive sum of £4,500, £I,OOO for the practice and £3,500 for the house. He alleged that Dr. Millar falsely and fraudulently represented that the average yearly income of his practice from 1922 to 1925 was £1,485, and that the average number of his midwifery cases was over SO. The plaintiff found later that the average yearlyincome from 1922 to 1925 was £9BB and not £1,458 as represented; that the midwifery cases did not exceed 30 per annum; that the defendant "cut” the fees as ordered by the 8.M.A.; that the house w-as not new; and that the defendant did not have to leave because of his wife’s illness. Plaintiff alleged that he had suffered £750 damages on the sale of the practice and £1,250 on the sale of the house. He therefore claimed £2,000 damages and costs. Counsel detailed the events leading up to the sale and said Dr. Alexander did not decide at once because he had more than one practice in view. Dr. Millar refused to produce his income tax returns. At the end of May a cheque for £750 was paid, but no agreement was signed until the following month. Dr. Alexander spent a month with Dr. Millar going the rounds and being introduced to the patients. The whole of the books, were left by Dr. Millar. Nothing aroused Dr. Alexander’s suspicions and he paid over the rest of the moneys and completed the deal. A year later he began to get suspicious and went through the books and found that the takings were in the neighbourhood of not £1,500 but of £I,OOO a year. He learned also that the house cost about £3,200 and not £3,500 as said by Dr. Millar. The plaintiff, under cross-examina-tion, said that he was in practice at Tuakau before he bought out Dr. Millar. He took £73 a month for the nine months he was there. He abandoned that practice when he was burned out. (Proceeding.)