PURCHASE OF PRACTICE

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 222, 8 December 1927, Page 15

PURCHASE OF PRACTICE

DOCTORS’ DISPUTE CLAIM FOR £2,000 IN SUPREME COURT Allegations of misrepresentation in the sale of a practice and a house at Takapuna were made by one medical practitioner against another, in a claim for £2,000 damages, the hearing of which was continued to-day before Mr. Justice Reed. Dr. William Arthur Alexander and his wife, Liiiney Alexander, of Takapuna, sued Dr. Ernest James Millar, of Royal Oak, for £750 paid in excess for tlie practice and £1,250 paid in excess of the house. Mr. Fiddes appears for the plaintiffs and Mr. Richmond for the defendant. In Juno last year, the plaintiff purchased the practice from D.r. Millar for the inclusive sum of £4,500, £I,OOO for the practice and £3,500 for the house. He did this on the representations of the defendant that the average yearly income from 1922 to 1925 had been £1,488, and that the house had cost £3,500 a year before. Plaintiff said that he found later that the actual yearly income was £9BB, and that the house cost £4OO or £SOO less than represented. Lengthy evidence was heard yesterday relative to the value of the house and the value of the practice. When the case reopened this morning, A. W. Thomas architect, who supervised the building of the house, said the cost of the land and the house was £3,205. The house was not electrically wired.

Henry Walter Shove, public accountant, said lie had examined Millar’s books. The grand total for three years as shown by both the ordinary and the casual books was £3,644 11s 6d, an average of approximately £1,215 a year. In some cases the names were the same, but the figures were different in one of the books.

Thomas Hannah, valuer, said that the value of the house and land was £2,500. He valued the house at £1,790.

Lionel L. Speedy, land agent, also valued the property. His figures were £2,250 as the market value of the property. The land would be worth £4OO cash, and the buildings £I,BOO. Dr. William Baxter, of Takapuna, said he would doubt it if Millar said he took £IOO a month cash. If he said £SO he would know the witness wouldn’t. He had no idea of the extent of Dr. Millar’s practice, or how it would compare with his own. To Mr. Richmond: Witness would 'not be surprised if Dr. Millar made £1,200 in one year. It was likely that he would know what he made, although he (witness) did not often know how much he made himself in a year. Re-examined the witness said that he would not give anything for a practice in New Zealand. “NOTHING TO SHOW FRAUD” Mr. Richmond, in opening his case, said that it was obvious that the allegations against the defendant’s earnings had gone by the board, as the average had been proved to be £1,200 a year. There was nothing to show fraud. The plaintiff had not investigated the books and had not proved anything. In spite of the fact that the plaintiff knew his figures were wrong, he went ahead with the case. He had endeavoured to frighten the defendant into a big settlement, said Mr. Richmond. Counsel submitted that there was no evidence of fraud as far as the practice was concerned. It was hardly likely that Dr. Millar was going to engineer a fraud and leave the evidence of it in the books which were actually in use by the plaintiff. Evidence for the defence is being called, after which Mr. Fiddes will call two further witnesses.