RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XV, Issue 4909, 3 October 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY. (Before H. Kenrick, Esq., 8.M.) CIVIL SIDE. Judgments for Plaintiffs. Fricker v. Foster.-Claim, £2, for goods sold; costs, 11s. West v. JNikorima.—Claim, £17 18s lid, for goods supplied ; costs, 17s. D*feni>2?d Cases. Lavcry v. Boyer and Chappell.—Claim, £7 7a 9d, for goods supplied.—The plaintiff deposed that the deft-ndants had been builders at Te Aroha, and obtained go ids from him to the value "of which he sued for.—Francis Chappeli, one of the defendants, admitted that the goods might have been supplied to Boyer, but it was when no partnership existed between them. Boyer and himself were at one time working together as mates, and agreed to part, Boyer taking one work they were constructing, and witness taking another. The goods, the subject of the present action, bad not been supplied to him. They were used in carrying out the erection of a school at Te Aroha, with which he was not connected.—John Read deposed that he had supplied timber for the erection of the school to Boyer and Chappell, and the latter was perfectly aware of it. He had several conversations with Chappell about the accounts sent for goods supplied.—Judgment was given for the amount claimed-and costs, £3 10s. Tho Waikato Lodge Case. PAYNE V. BABLOW. Claim £4i 0s 6d, for professional ser vices.—Mr Lush for the plaintiff, and Mr Miller for the defence. Mr Miller admitted the main allegations of the plaintiff, but submitted that the deduction of £4 0s fid made from plaintiff's bill by the Lodge of Oddfellows, of which the defendant was ! secretary, had been legally made. He contended that a section of the Act provided for the settlement of such disputes, and no application had been made to the Lodge to settle the matter within 40 days as provided. The deduction made was on account of a refusal by plaintiff to attend a member of the lodge of which he was a medical officer. In the present case Dr .Payne had 77 members of the lodge on his list; these were entitled according to the rules of the lodge to medical attendance. One of these, Mr John Townsend, required medical attendance for his wife, and called in Dr Payne, who neglected to attend, and Mr Townsend was compelled to call in another doctor. The following day Dr Payne went to the defendant, the lodge secretary, and told him to remove Mr Townsend's name from his (Dr Payne's) list. This could not be done by the secretary. Under the rules of the order the other medical man was paid out of the funds of the lodge, and the amount deducted from Dr Payne's account. This was the amount sued for. The defendant, upon being sworn, stated that he was Secretary of the Loyal Waikato Lodge of Oddfellows. Dr Payne is one of the medical officers of the lodge. Mr John Townsend was a member on Dr Payne's list. In May the doctor called on witness regarding Mr Townsend, and said that owiDg to treatment received at Mr Townsend's hands, he would not attend him or his family any more, and asked him 'Barlow) to strike Townsend off his list. Witness replied that he would not do so without authority. Plaintiff appeared to be in a passion and said that he would not mind paying £5 or £10, but he -must get Townsend off his list, and he admitted that Mrs Townsend was seriously ill. As the doctor positively refused to attend Mr Townsend .or family he wrote acquanting that gentleman with the fact. Had general instructions to act for N.G. of the lodge in bis absence. Another medical man was called in by Mr Tevrnsend, and his account was sent to the lodge, and it and a chemist's account bad been passed for payment, and the amount ordered to be deducted from Dr Payne's account. Dr Payne bad not sent in any application to have the matter settled under the lodge rules.

To Mr Lush: Did not remember Dr Pajne demanding in open ledge that these matters be settled bj the lodge, bat Mr Greenville had done something of the kind on his behalf.

The evidence of W. C. Ord which had been taken was read. It was to the effect tkat be was N.G., and as such officer had approved of the action taken by the Secretary in connection with the case.

John Townsend deposed that on the 15th May last he, as a member of the Loyal Waikato Lodge, called on Dr Payne to attend his (witness 1) wife, and the Dr said he would go, bat he did not do so ; he said nothing about any dispute or difiWence. He had been on Dr Payne's list nine or ten years. Waited for about two hours, and went over to the doctor's house again ; knocked at the door, but got no reply ; then went to look for Dr Callan, but could not fiud him. After looking for Dr Calian returned home, and met Dr Payne leavinghis (witness')house; thiß was about three hours after be had been sent for. As far as he knew there was no dispute existent between the doctor and him> self at that time. On receiving the notice from the lodge Secretary that Dr Payne declined to attend his family, saw the Secretary in Ihe absence of theN.G., and asked him what reason Dr Payne had given for his action, and the Secretary did not know of any. Then engaged DrKilgour to attend Mrs Townsend, and afterwards called in Dr Callan, had to pay fees to them amounting to £4, Os 6d. Asked Dr Payne what reason there was for treating him in such a manner, and the Dr replied " £fone ;" had never received any ex* planation from the Doctor.

To Mr Lush : Was not impertinent to Dr J*ayne when he asked him to attend his wife. Told Mr Barlow that he had called on Dr Payne on a previous occasion, was told that the doctor was out, and saw him a few minutes afterwards on his premises. Thia was a fact. • On the 17th sent Dr Payne's medicine back, but did not say he had no confidence in Dr Payne, nor that he didn't want Dr Payne any mors. The reason he sent tk,e medicine back was that another doctor was attending at his house.

James McAndrew swore that he was one of the secretaries of the lodge in question, and kept the minute book. The accounts of I)rs Callaa and Kilgour were passed and paid by the lodge. No applN cation had been made to the lodge hy Dr Payne to hare the gaiter of the case investigated.. A committee was appointed by the lodge to consider the dispute between the parties, and the lodge refused to receive its report} he believed beoatfse the meeting declining it was packed by Dr Payne and his friends., Dr Callan swore that he was a medical

officer of the lodge, and whs called on by Dr Payne on the 16th May About seren o'clock in the evening. The latter stated to witness that he had a disinclination _ to continue attending Townsend's family. Was called in to attend Mrs Townsend on the 16th June. The reason assigned by Dr Payne for not attending Townsend's family was owing to disagreements between Townsend and himself.

Dr Kilgour deposed that he was called in on the 17t:s May to visit Mrs Towns* end, and his charges were paid. DrP^yne affirmed that Townsend asked him to attend his wife on the evening of the 15th May. He did so that night and next morning and the following day, and prescribed for her. Had to go to Waiorongomai the day after that. Re« ceived a letter from the lodge secretary re the deduction made on account of Town« send employing other doctors to attend hia wife, and remembered an account being sent to the lodge from Dr Kilgour. Attended" a meeting, and demanded that the settle■« ment of the accounts should be decided legally in open lodge. To Mr Miller: Did not know what was done subsequently, except that the sum now claimed was deducted from bis cheque. The reason he desired Townsend removed from his list was owing to the way the latter had.been talking of him, and having said that on one occasion when Townsend called on witness, was informed that he was out, and on looking over the vdoctor'a fence he saw, him in his garden. Preferred . not goiDg to Townsend's house except in company with another medical man.

W. j. Cain swore he was a member ef. the lodge, and was present at a meeting of the lodge when Dr Payne demanded that the dispute between himself and Townsend should be legally settled by the lodge.

W. S. Greenville deposed that at a lodge meeting Townsend claimed £4 0s 6d for money alleged by him to hare been paid for medical attendance, when the N.G. ruled that the money could not be legally repaid to Townsend. Dr Payne demanded that charges brought by Town* send should be legally decided according to the laws of the order. This had not been yet done; it had been purposely burked. The accounts were subsequently passed by the lodge. Mr Lush held that money bad been wrongly deducted from Dr Payne's account, and claimed its refund.

'Mr Miller asked the Bench, in deciding the case, to separate the dispute between Dr Payne and Mr Townsend from that between the lodgo and its doctor, the latter- of which had been settled in the regular way, at a meeting of the lodge.

The Court decided it had no jurisdiction, as Sect. 27, Friendly Society Act, had not been complied with. Each party should pay its own costs.