RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2090, 26 August 1890, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

: .■TEliuX'A c - r -M6NDAY i; j : [Before 0. A. Wray, Esq., KM.]' |; CIVIL CASES. ! Andrew . Gihsen v. ; 'W. Davie— Claim,. JBI 19s 6d.—Judgment by de-fault,--with, costs. ‘ I Henry Clinch v. W. Johnson— Claim £2 XOsr—Mr Salmond for plaintiff,—Judgment /by default for amount claimed and costs

Mrs Haar v. Charles Miller—Claim £2, for services as nurse to defendant’s wife.

Mr Raymond for plaintiff and ,Mr Salmond for defendant.

The evidence of the plaintiff was to the effect that she acted as midwife, and in that capacity attended the defendant’s wife. ‘Her usual charge was £3; The defendant had paid £1 on account, and had promised the balance several'times. No complaint was made of her services, i f

By MrSalmond: Had received £3 from Mrs Miller for ’Similar 1 services before, Had attended her in all six times, ■'* ■ ■ ' i By the Bench : Attended as midwife only. Defendant was to have a nurse. On this occasion stayed two days. Had practised as a midwife for twenty-six years. Was sure that £3 bad been' paid her on five different occasions. Always received thatsum. Bred. Haar, son of the last witness, r remembered his mother receiving the first letter from plaintiff. The memo 1 , or. date on the letter was written by him. He also endorsed a second letter ' with the date. Had; never spoken te Miller on the subject. His mother practised as a midwife. Her usuai charge was £3. Mrs Miller, wife of defendant, stated that Mrs Haar had attended her twice. She stayed a_ week each time and charged £3. This letter produced she did hot recognise. On the first occasion she (witness) asked Mrs Haar te attend her. On the second occasion Mrs Haar asked what her previous nurses had charged. Witness replied a pound. Plaintiff said she ought to have a little more', as she had to go backwards and forwards. Subsequently asked her what she would charge to stay a week. She said £8 and 25s a week. Offered her then 30s. She said she would not stay for that. Had sent her 20s and promised something extra for her trouble. She, had not been properly attended to, having been confined to her bed for nine days instead of six.

By Mr Raymond: Mrs Haar bad only attended her with three children, On two previous occasions she had waited upon her for a week. On the last occasion complained to Mrs Haar that she had not been properly attended to. Had offered plaintiff 5s for her extra trouble, but she refused to take it except she got the whole amount charged. John Shaw Hayes, duly qualified medical practitioner, practising at Temuka, gave evidence of the usual charges for a nurse. The charge of £3 was excessive for attendance at a confinement, and for two days, as the plaintiff did not possess the requisite skill in case anything went wrong. He considered twenty shillings would be a remarkable charge in a case line this. His own charge was two guineas for persona in Mrs Miller’s condition of life. This would include 8 or 9 visits as well as the confinement.

By Mr Raymond; A medical man’s charge would be regulated according to distance and to the person’s condition of lifei "Was aware that Mrs Haar attended a uumber of cases as a midwife. Considered that if she attended as . a skilled midwife she would be well paid with a pound. In this case something extra might be given for additional services. Skilled nurses charged from 20s to 80s a week. Vi

Henry Wright, jun., farmer at Eangitata Island: Plaintiff had attended his wife on several occasions. Had paid her £8 each time. She only stopped for the confinement. Thought, considering the pay, that she ought to have stayed longer, Fred. Haar, recalled, was certain his mother attended Mrs Miller in all six times.

His Worship said that it seemed to him that £§ was an excessive charge. However, it appeared to be the custom on the Eangitata Island, and judgment would be given for plaintiff, with costs. The Court then rose.