RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume IV, Issue 727, 22 October 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Friday, October 21. (Before J. Giles, Esq., R. M.) CITIL CASE.

"White v. Cleveland, claim for*B2 4s for drugs supplied in September 1860. Mr Pitt was for the plaintiff, and Mr J. B. Fisher for the defendant.

The plaintiff stated that he was a chemist and druggist in Westport, and that the defendant visited his shop in September, 18G9. In consequence of her visit he prepared some drugs to her order. The items in the bill were made out from memory, but he was certain they were correct. There was a fire in the premises in November last, and his books were destroyed. Witness had tendered his account to the defendant on Tuesday last, aud she then stated that she was willing to pay the account in weekly instalments of 10s.

By the Bench • The defendant did not order the different bottles of medicines, &c; she told me what her complaint was, and left it to me to give her what she required. They were my own prescriptions. By Mr Eisner: The defendant never came for the things and I believe chey were ultimately thrown out. I have been through the Insolvent Court, and Mr Whitefoord was elected Trustee in my estate on August 2;>th, 1869. I obtained my order of discharge on January 19th, 1870. By Mr Pitt: My estate was taken out of Court. I arranged with my creditors, paying a composition, aud the estate was restored to me. Mr Eisher claimed a nonsuit, firstly, on the ground that the action should have been brought by the trustee in the assigned estate of E. White, as it did not appear that Mr Whitefoord had ceased to have control over the estate, or had re conveyed it to the plaintiff. He should contend also that the plaintiff must be non-suited on the second ground that there had been no delivery. The law was very clear that delivery should only bo implied in the case of chattels that would not admit of ready removal, but it could not be held that a few medicines presented any difficulty in the way of delivery. As instructed by his client, aud according to the plaintiff's evidence, there had never been an attempt to deliver, although the defendant lived in the same town; and on Tuesday last was the first occasion that auy demaud had been made for payment. He would also maintain that the plaintiff had been guilty of a breach' of the Medical Practitioners' Act, and had certainly by his own evidence placed it beyond his power to recover. The 19th clause of the Act was as follows : "No person shall be entitled to recover any charge in any Court of law in the Colony for auy medical or surgical advice or attendance, or for the performance of any operation or for any medicine that lie shall have both prescribed and supplied, unless he shall prove on the trial that he is registered.

His Worship held the last objection to be fatal, without considering all the points raised, and gave judgment for the defendant with costs of Court and Counsel's costs.