CHEMIST AND DOCTOR.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 309, 22 May 1913, Page 6

CHEMIST AND DOCTOR.

DISPUTE AIRED IX COURT. A MATTER OF COMMISSION. Armed with an imposing ledger, Samuel Teed, chemist, one of the plaintiffs in the adjourned case of Teed and Co. v. Dr. 11. A. McCleland, claim for goods sold and delivered, was better able to satisfy the Court yesterday morning that the charges made by the firm were or were not fair and reasonable. Mr. D. Hutchen, for the defendant, continued his examination of this witness, and asked with regard to the commisison on prescriptions, was not that allowance made on account of an offer made by witness to the doctor. Witness denied that this was so, and said it was merely a 15 per cent, discount. He admitted that at the time the arrangement was come to between the doctor and himself, the doctor was having his prescriptions made up by another chemist, but he denied that the offer had been made to draw defendant away from that chemist. Witness also replied in the negative to a suggestion that he made the same arrangement, or one with a bigger allowance, to a Stratford doctor. He was not a partner in the business when Mr. Hood was their agent at Stratford. Witness could not remember when he first heard of the Secret Commissions Act, but was aware that the matter had been discussed in: the Chemist and Druggist journal. ■ Mr. Hutchen: As* a matter of fttot, you knew nothing about; it until my learned friend here primed you up! Mr. Govett: I object, your Worship. That is a most offensive expression, and is absolutely iintrue. ■

Witness continued that he told Dr. McCleland that he could no longer continue these commissions, as it was not usual. Mr. Hutchen: But you told his Worship yesterday that it was because oi the Secret Commisisons Act that you could not allow him commission. Proceeding, witness explained that it was the discussions in the journal which had influenced him in refusing commission. Mr. Hutchen then called Thomas Hood, a chemist of thirty-three years' experience, who stated that he had been employed by Teed and Co. as manager oi their Stratford branch, in or about the year 1893. Commission had been allowed by the firm to Dr. Paget, of Stratford, wlvo had previously been doing his own dispensing. The commission allowed this doctor was oneHhird; that'was to say, for every -2s 6d bottle of medicine, Dr. Paget would get lOd. This arrangement was carried out for three years. Witness said it was common knowledge that this practice existed, but, though he had heard of it in Christchurch, this was his only experience of anything of the kind. This arangement did not Affect the patient in any way; it was merely a loss to the chemist. As a matter of fact, an allowance was always made to medical men. Doctors had as much knowledge of the price of drugs as the chemist had, and, if they so wisli- | ed, could make up their own' medicines, [ but to the general public the tiling was ' practically sealed. They did not trade on the ignorance of the public, because there were more learned people than himself coming into his shop to have prescriptions made up. His Worship: But you said that doctors were charged less, because they knew more. That is, you trade on the ignorance of tilie public. In his explanation, witness stated that a doctor was in nearly the same profession as a chemist, and it was the kindred nature of their work that prompted these concessions. Witness was then questioned as to the reasonableness of the charges made for drugs by Teed and Co. as specified in their account with Dr. McCleland. In one instance, where Teed and Co. had charged Is fid for ointment, Mr. Hood stated that he would have charged Dr. McCleland 9d, and would not have lost money. Medicines at 3s 6d, he thought, should have been charged at 2a (id, and, when cross-ex-amined bv Mr. Govett, witness summed up his evidence to the effect that, so far as the general public was concerned, these were fair and reasonable charges, but where a doctor was so charged, they.were much too high. When dealing with Dr. McCleland, witness had made no arrangement that he should have preference charges; the matter was understood, and no arrangement was necessary. Doctors were charged practicallv wholesale prices, with an addition of 5 per cent. Alfred Ernest Rvkcs, registered chemist, with experience extending over 23 years, deposed that it was the custom to always make a difference to medical men in the dispensing of prescriptions. It was the same fashion as doctors not charging the wives and children of broiler practitioners, Prior to the passing of the Secret Commissions Act, he had never been connected with any chemist who allowed commissions. Dr. McCleland was then called, and in the course of his evidence stated that he met Mr. S. Teed in Devon street, close to plaintiff's shop, and told him that he had now no chemist, as he had left Sykes'. Plaintiff had said, "I would be very glad to do business with you, Doctor. Come inside." Witness did so. and it was there arrange' that T"p<i would do his dispensing. P'" ; "it' : T V-d said, "Of course we will make wi '.lie usual allowance." Witness replied th:>t he was quite agreeable to this. Thrarrangement continued until 1!)10. He might say that he never asked foi 1 - mission; it was allowed without his ;■ ing for it. He had been dealm? -vir'Sykes for some time, but had neither received any allowance nor asked fn>His counter-claim was for three-fo-irHis of the amount charged by Teed c" 1 Co.. and calculated on the basis of the lowest allowance made him. As far as commission was concerned, the doctor stated that he had no idea such an Act as Hie Secret Commissions Act existed. Referring to the telephone conversation which concerned the item, "account ren dercd." witness told plaintiff that he had not made the usual allowance, and the reply was, "Never mind, Doctor, that will he all right. We will settle abo'it that later on." Plaintiff intimated that his partner would have to he consul t,ed, as the business had lately been turned into a limited liability company, Thidoctor confessed that he did not pay strict attention to his accounts, but he thought he had said to Mr. Teed. "Don't vou think you should take something off this acccount, and that £5 would be n vcrv fair price for the settlement?" This conversation had caused witness to look into the accounts, and, on doing so, he had noticed several discrepancies. He had been charged, for instance. 3s 'id for a -lay. box of ointment, which he himself could have purchased for 2s. lie was not asking for any commission, but wns onlv asking what was usually Miarged 1 <> medical men, and did not waii anything else.

Cross examined bv Mr. Govett, witness admitted that in his dealings with Teed iind Co. there had always been a balance to the latter's credit. He had no reflection of when the account for £0 fta !)d was first sent in. The doctor nmved that lie might have said to Teed that, he made the account come to £5 Os Od. but he emphatically denied that Teed had answered. "We will make it *'lr't." It wns correct that witness had made nn olTer of £ ; > to settle an account of £lO odd. The counter-

claim wag a kind of average, the details of which he had left to his solicitor. Mr. Govctt pressed for those details, but witness could not recollect any of them which lie had complaints to the plaintiff, save one charge for menthol, which had been billed at Is Gd, when it should have been Is Id.

Summing up, counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the case had been proved; that a demand for payment had been made, and that there was a definite arrangement to pay £5 4s Gd on the previous account. He contended that Dr. McCleland's statement that this £5 4s Gd included-goods afterwards supplied was a perfect absurditj', and on that particular point Mr. Teed's evidence should be taken absolutely without hesitation. Though it might suit a young chemist to make an allowance to a doctor, there was no legal liability to make such deductions. With regard to the counterclaim, Mr. Govett submitted that notice of this claim should have been given 48 hours before the Court sat, whereas only 24 hours' notice had been given.

Mr. Hutclien contended that there was no evidence to show that the arrangement as regards' concessions had been terminated. He submitted that this contract was not in any way affected by the provisions of the Secret Commissions Act. Decision was reserved.