RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 190, 18 May 1872, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Yesterday. Before Jackson Keddell, Esq. R.M. M. Mulligan v. J. Fox. —This was a judgment summons case for £2 2s Gd. 'L'he defendant was examined as to his means and ability to pay. The defendant said he would pay the debt by Monday next, and an order was made for him to pay the amount on that day, or in default go to gaol for 7 days. Peuston v. Gate. —This was a claim for Is Bd, being the amount of rates for an allotment in Hill-street. The defendant said he had got no such allotment, and knew nothing about it. He lived on an allotment belonging to a Mr Parkinson in Cook-street.. There was another Cate, whose letters witness sometimes got by mistake. There was an arrangement that witness was to have the allotment in question, but he never completed the purchase : os was paid for him by Mr Murray for a quarter’s rent, but no more. The R.M. told defendant that he should have taken steps to have his name struck off the roll, and gave judgment against him for the amount claimed. Undefended Cases.—Judgment for Plaintiffs. —M. J. Perston v. Mrs Tapre!], 14s 2d, rates ; same v. D. Williams, £1 4s 4d, rates ; same v. W. G. llibble, 14s 2d, rates ; Golden Lion G.M.Co. v. T. Quarlejq £3 ss, calls; R. Adams v. G. Bennef, £2 5s lOd, goods (to be paid in three weeks, or 14 days’ imprisonment ;) Emma Kevin v. J. F. Keogh, £3 18s Gd, board and lodging, (the plaintiff in this case is a married woman, suing in her own name under The Married Women's Protection Act;) J. Quinn v. W. Davies, £6 4sGd, money lent; P. Norbury v. R. Blake, £1 3s 94d, goods ; A. Byers v. T. W. Jones, £8 7s, for board and lodging and cash lent. C. F. Lethbridge v. H. Davis. Mr Tyler for plaintiff, Mr Macdonald for defendant. —Th ; s was a claim for £2O for professional services.—The defendant was examined, and said he had a son who had been ill for some time, and Dr Lethbridge was called in. and prescribed for him. Don’t know the number of visits. On (he 18th April Dr Lethbridge said he could do no moie for the ch'ld, and after waiting two days witness went to the homoeopathic doctor, and the patient got better, and Doctor Lethbridge said he had been semvily treated, and sent in bis account immediately.—Doctor Lethbridge, legally qualified medical practitioner, stated that the sun of the defendant was suffering from typhoid fever. Witness commenced attending him on the Ist April, and continued attending up to and including the 23rd April, during which time lie paid 44 visits, it was a very serious case indeed, none of the visits were unnecessary, the case required witness's utmost care and attention ; the boy was delirious most of the time. There were five days on which there were three visits per diem paid. It was a very peculiar and dangerous case. Witness had paid his visit on the morning of the 23rd April, and observed that some instructions relative to treatment bad not been carried out, and on complaining of Ibis to the mother, she said she was so “ dazed” that she bad forgotten. The same day witness met the husband, who told him that he had called in the homoeopathic doctor. Witness then discontinued his visits. Witness’s customary charges are those which were agreed upon at a meeting of medical men—from 7s6dto 10s Gd per visit. In this case witness paid 44 visits. In this case visits were sometimes paid three times in one day, and then two visits were charged as one. By Mr Macdonald : I know the homoeopathic doctor by sight lie is a grocer. I don’t know that although lie’s a giocer he did more than the doctor, as lie cured the boy. [Mr Tyler said it was the custom of these people to step in when a favorable change took place, and to take all the credit for themselves.) Dr Trousseau was consulted, and gave a very unfavorable opinion. He said lie bad rarely seen, with such symptoms, a patient recover. I gave a more guarded opinion, and said there were some hopes. Dr Trousseau as good as told the parents that the child would die. I did not tell him he was wrong. I did not tell the parents so. I think his opinion was founded upon the facts. I consider all the visits were necessary. When the father said he had called on the grocer I declined to attend the patient any more. It is not the usual practice of medical men to consult with such people. I at once threw up the case. If I had been certain that my directions would have been carried out, I might still have attended the patient. I consider I was quite justified in what I did. [Mr Macdonald : You thought it quite right, I suppose, to visit the sins of the father upon the child.] I never make a less charge than 7s Gd for a single visit. If people treat a medical man as I was treated in this case, I think it quite justifiable to charge 10s per visit. [Mr Macdonald : Then you charge 7s Gd for your treatment of the patient, and lialf-a-crown for their treatment of you.] The difference between 7s Gd and 10s Gd is is regulated by a person’s station in life, and means a rich publican would be charged more than a poor gentleman. The defendant is an employer of labour as a carter. Since the rule of fees was fixed I do not remember 5s to have been charged instead of 7s Gd.—Dr Sam stated that the usual charges are 10s Gd during day, and £1 Is at night, for visits. Was not present at the meeting spoken of as to fixing fees, considers the charge of Dr. Lethbridge in this case fair and reasonsonable. By Mr Macdonald: —My lowest fee is 10s Gd, but I often attend for nothing, I am sorry to say. Never heard of 7s Gd. If my account was £2O, and a man could not pay it, I would say here is a receipt for £2O ; pay me what you can. —Dr Kilgour said the usual professional charges were such as Dr Sam had stated. The charge of Dr Lethbridge in this case was a fair and reasonable one. —Dr Croft gave similar testimony.—The learned

counsel having addressed the Court on either side, the Court gave judgment' 'ffir plaintiff for the amount claimed, and £8 4s costs.

E. Thomas, v. Edward Dixon.—Mr. Macdonald for plaintiff.—This was an action to recover the sum of £SO on a promissory note. It did appear from the jural at the back of the summons, that the defendant had been served.—Mr. Miller, solicitor, proved the service by J, B. Mason, bailiff, on Monday last. The R.M said in this case it should not have been put on the list for to-day, there being a rule of Court which required a longer time to have elapsed, viz:—That no summons issued later than Saturday, or served later than Monday, should be heard on the Friday following. Mr Dodd said great difficulty had been found in serving the defendant. The case then went on and Mr. W. H. Oldrey proved the amount to bo due and owing.—The R.M. gave jndgment for plaintiff io the amount claimed.

J. Butt v. E. V. and G. V. Dixon.— Mr Dodd for plaintiff; Mr Tyler for defendant.—This was a claim for £5 ss, for rent of premises in Grey-street, and for a case of brandy. The claim for rent, £2 5s was admitted.—The plaintiff proved the supply of a case of brandy on the order of Mr McTurk, the defendants’ manager and book-keeper, for which £3 was charged, and that, as well as the rent, was now due and owing. The brandy was delivered to William Dixon, a brother of defendants.—J. E. Dodd, solicitor, deposed that lie had seen E. V. Dixon, one of the defendartts, in reference to this matter, and that the latter said it was all right. Witness also saw Mr McTurk in reference to the order, who said he had no doubt the case of brandy went up in the boat.—Mr Tyler submitted that there was no'proof of delivery to the defendants, E. V. and G. V. Dixon. It had not been proved that William Dixon was the agent of Dixon Bross., nor that he was authorised to take delivery.—Mr Dodd elected to take a nonsuit. C. Pye v. R. Dillon. —This was a claim for £IG 3s 9d, for goods sold and delivered.—The defendant did not appear, and plaintiff having proved the debt, tho Court gave judgment for the amount claimed. E. Moss v. T. Edwards. —This was an action to recover the sum of £1 15s, for damages arising from a collision between plaintiff’s cab and defendant’s horse, in Albert-street, Grahamstown.—The plaintiff deposed that, as he was going along with his cab, he stopped to pick up a passenger, when defendant came up, driving three horses in a row, and one turned round and came into collision with his, and broke one of the shafts.—The defendant said he was on the right side of the mad.— The R.M. told defendant the case should have been settled out of Court, and that when he drove three horses along the streets he should have reins to guide them with. He must pay the amount claimed, and costs. ,

A. Otto v. G. Maule. —Mr Macdonald for plaintiff; Mr Tyler for defendant. This was a claim for £lO 10s, for tho nee and occupation of an office in Brownstreet, at 25s per week.—ln. answer to Mr Tyler, plaintiff said the e was tio written agreement. A former tenant paid 10s per week, and Mr Macgreg*.., who occupies a similar office under the same roof, 12s 6d. Witness let the whole place to Louis R. James subsequently for £3 10s per week. Never agreed that Maule should remain there for twelve mouths. Maule offered to pay 30s if he could have it for that time. —George Maule, the defendant, said he did occupy the office for the time specified in the bill of particulars. Witness objected to pay £1 or 25s per week for six or twelve months, and he did a great deal in the way of improvements, and laid out £8 4s 6d. The plaintiff then let the place over his head, and pulled the office down. —The Court gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs. The Couit adjourned at 4 p.m. until Monday next.