COMMISSION TO DOCTORS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 308, 21 May 1913, Page 2

COMMISSION TO DOCTORS.

A FIFTEEN PER CENT."HAKE OFF." '"lt has not been usual to allow doctors commission on prescriptions. Other doctors in New Plymouth have not had anything of the sort for over fifteen years. I have allowed Doctor McCleland 15 per cent., but when the Secret Commissions Act came into force, I said, 'We shall be unable to continue this arrangement.' " The foregoing is an extract from the evidence of Samuel Teed, chemist, New Plymouth, sulanitted at the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning in the ease of Teed and Co. v. Dr. H. A. McCleland, claim £lO lis 3d, for goods sold and delivered. There was a counter claim of £3 5s (id, for commission on proscriptions from January Ist, 1911 to September 30th, 1011. Mr. C. W. Govett, for the plaintiffs, stated that the charges were fair and reasonable, and evidence would be given to this effect. For the defence, Mr. D. Hutchen contended that his client had been over-charged. One of the plaintiffs. Samuel Teed, in the course of his evidence said that he had communicated with the defendant over the telephone, and had asked, "What about that account V" Defendant had alleged that the amount owing was £5 4s !)d and not £f> Os Oil. Plaintiff had then said, "We'll make it that!" Defendant did not ask whether witness would give commission. I

Mr. Hutchen: You are aware that only yon can supply the figures on which commission can be allowed?

Mr. Govett: Allowing commission on prescriptions after 1011 is an offence against the Secret Commissions Act, a.nd I submit that if Mr. Teed were to give any commission after [that -date, lie would be committing an offence, and defendant has committed an offence by sisking for it. In answer to a question in- His Worship, witness continued thjit 15 per cent, commission had been allowed on all doctors' prescriptions .made up for a third party. He then made the statement already quoted. Counsel for the defendant submitted the witness to a lengthr cross-examin-ation as to the price of certain drugs. and obtained admissions to the effect that in at least one instance the plaintiffs had charged defendant more than was a fair price. During the course of this examination, witness remarked: "The doctor wanted to settle an £ll bill for five guineas, and that is the cause of this unpleasantness. T offered him a 15 per cent 'rake off.' but he would not accept." The case was adjourned until this morning to allow witness to produce details of prescriptions made up for and charged to defendant.