Thames Goldfields Hospital.

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3646, 2 September 1880, Page 2

Thames Goldfields Hospital.

The monthly meeting of the Committee of the above institution was held yesterday afternoon in the Salutation Hotel. Present—T. L. Murray (in the chair), Revs. P. O'JJeilly, V. Lush, and S. J. Neill, with Messrs Kadford, Mulligan, McCullough, Osborne, McGowan, Eenshaw, Mcllhone, Hudson, Frater, and Mennie. Apologies were received from Messrs Marshall, Aitken, Comer, and Ahier.

The minutes were read and confirmed, after which the House Committee's report was read and adopted. The Treasurer's statement was as follows :—Receipts : Balance last month, £13 15s 6d ; subscriptions, £1; patients' charges, £13 18s 6d ; Bank of New Zealand overdraft, £85 16s 3d. Total, £114 10s sd.—Expenditure : Salaries, £57 2s ; maintenance, £41 3s 8d; medical comforts, £7s 10s; funerals, £2 2a ; building and repairs, 7s 6d; drags, &c, £5 6s 2d ; commission, 15s 9d ; miscellaneous, 3s 4d. Total, £114 10s sd.—Assets: Subsidy due from Government and applied for, £75 14s 7d; additional sum applied for from Government to pay July accounts, £25 Os 4d.—Liabilities: Bank of New Zealand overdraft, £85 16s 6d; salaries, £57 2s; general accounts, £50 19s 10.— The statement was received and adopted. The Surgeon's report was read and adopted.

The secretary read letters from Dr Payne and Mr Atherton referring to the matter of dental services at the hospital, but as a notice of motion was to be brought forward by Mr McCullough upon this subject the consideration of the letters was postponed. A long letter was read from Mrs Power making charges against Mr Aitken, the dispenser, and warders of the Hospital. The letter was a recapitulation of previous charges made by Mrs Power. Upon the motion of Mr Osborne the receipt of the letter was acknowledged. Mr McCullough moved the notice of motion in his name to the effect that the resolution prohibiting Mr Aitken, from extracting teeth be rescinded, and that Mr Aitken be allowed to extract teeth from all hospital patients. In support of the motion Mr McCullough stated that he had spoken to Dr Payne upon the matter of allowing the hospital the use of his dental instruments, and had also seen Mr Aitken upon the subject, i The dispenser very fairly offered his instruments for hospital purposes if he were allowed to use them, and in the opinion of the speaker the offer was very creditable to Mr Aitken after what had happened, and solved the question of whether the hospital should expend the sum of £7 or not in purchasing dental instruments. If all the patients of the hospital were attended to free of charge, that was all as a committee they were called upon to concern themselves about. Mr Mcllhone seconded the resolution. Mr Frater said in his opinion it would not be going too far to allow Mr Aitken to extract teeth from other than Hospital patients, and if a fee were offered him to allow him to accept it. Mr McCullough said he would offer no objection to such an addition to his resolution, but he purposely limited his resolution so as to avoid introducing the question of receiving fees, which had he understood led to the previous resolution.

Mr Mcllhone objected to Mr Frater's suggestion. Mr Renshaw suggested accepting the offer of Dr Payne, who in his letter offered to leave his instruments at the Hospital for dental purposes, only asking that if, in his private practise, he required them, he might take his patient to the Hospital for such purposes. Mr McGowan said, after considering all the points he would more an amendment—"That dental instruments be Procured for the Hospital, and both the urgeon and Dispenser empowered to use them as required, and that fees taken for so extracting teeth should go to the funds of the institution."

Mr Radford seconded, and spoke highly of Mr Aitken's proficiency in the use of such instruments.

Mr McCullough thought they should at the present time when money was so much required by the Committe, try to save funds. If they could get the use of a set of instruments free, which would otherwise cost them £7, why not accept the offer.

The amendment was put and carried. Upon the motion of Mr McCullough letters of thanks were sent Dr Payne and Mr Atherton. ME MCILHONE SUFFEBING AND IS FAIN AGAIN. „ Mr Mcllbone proposed that the secretary write a letter to Dr Payne, asking him whether it was true, as reported, that he had twice refused to meet Dr Callan in consultation on two serious cases. He stated that the cases were those of a man named Clarke (since deceased), and a man named Jamieson now in the Hospital. Mr Mulligan seconded the resolution.

Mr Frater said he could offer some explanation on the matter. He stated that Mr Plant had told him that Dr Payne had refused to see Dr Callan in consultation, and asked him to inquire into the matter. He immediately saw Dr Payne, who admitted he refused, but was then engaged writing a letter to Dr Callan asking him to attend a consultation. . Mr Reashaw wished to know if MrMcllhone laid a charge against the doctor, and Mr McGowan said Dr Callan should hare written to the Committee.

Mr Mcllhone refused to lay a charge, and in reply to Mr McGowan said be did not think Dt Callan was the proper person to allude to the matter. If Dt Payne was so unmannerly as to refuse to meet another member of the staff, Dt Callan knew what was due to his position, and

would not make a complaint upon hii brother official.

Mr McCullough said that a great deal too much was being made about the matter. If the motion hud been agreed to time would have been saved, and he felt sure Dr Payne would have eiven a fair excuse for any action of his. The matter would have ended in smoke, but now it was only fair to Drs Payne and Callan that they should be written to on the subject. Mr Benshaw moved that unless a charge was laid no action should be taken, which was carried. Messrs Hudson, Price, Eadford and Rev. E. Laishley were appointed the House Committee.