DOCTOR V. LODGE MEMBER.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 157, 27 March 1908, Page 5

DOCTOR V. LODGE MEMBER.

, INTERESTING CASE AT- MARTON. ■ [hi telegraph.—srjicrAL cop-kestoxdent.] . MartGn, March 26. A caso of importance .to| friendly-. societies was heard at tho Marton Court to-day, before Mr. Stanford,- S.M. Crawford sued William Sinclair, of,Marton,! for' £3 35.,. for medical attendance to a child of defendant's. Mr.' Ladley: appeared /or plaintiff, and Mr. Lyon for-defendant, Tlio facts of tlio-case wero:tliat Dr. Crawford was. surgeon to. tiie 'Foresters' Lodge at .Marton, and defcntl.int was-a- financial member of the order. Tho plaintiff alleged that ho made the atteridaiico charged for, defendant specially undertaking to pay for it : a-s though it- was not a'Lodge matter.' Thii' allegation as to a special agreement tlio defendant denied.

, Plaintiff, m his ,evidence, stated there was no signed agreement between him and the Lodgo oi which defendant was a member. In. cross-examination plaintiff admitted that -ho; Had. acted as lodgo surgeon and signed certificates of initiation of members, in which' lie had stated that- ho was surgeon to the Lodgo;'also that-defendant's name was on tho list of Lodge, members, and that lie had received from tho Lodge . tho. : quarterly medical payment payable in respect of defendant as a, member of tho;Foresters' Order. Ho also admitted' having attended other members, and not having mado an 'extra charge in their cases, and that ho had read the Lodge rules through, but had not paid particular attention to tho rule stating that no medical officer omployod by the Lodgo should make a private contract ivit-h a member of tho. ' . Mr. Lyon contended that tho Court had no jurisdiction, ! inasmuch as Section . 27' of the' Friendly Societies Act, 1882, provided that all disputes:between. a member of! a Lodge and an officor .thereof should be decided in' the manner, directed by tho, rules of . the society, and should-/not bo removable- into any court-of law. In support of his contention, ho cited tho Palmerstpn appeal c'aso of Osborno -v. Wilson, in which the -'Magistrate's decision was reversed on'appeal. \Ho further contended that the Lodge's rulo Gl precluded tho plaintiff from making a contract with m"' Lodgo moniber such as'defendant , was, and that plaintilf was stopped by such rulo from: suing. . - ■ .- ■ ' • : Tho Magistrate over-ruled these contentions, stating,that ho was clearly of opinio-n that plaintiff; was never an officor of the Lodge, and that'there, was no existing agree-, ment between the plaintiff and the Lodge. Mr. Lyon stated ho had not concluded his case, and proposed to .'j.call evidence,', arid asked tlio Magistrate to'take such evidence in-view of an appeal. , Tho . Magistrate allowed tho giving of ovi-. donee by defendant, who denied that • lie had entered : into' .any, special arrangement .with Dr" Crawford.'; •/>., ' His Worship declined to hear any further ovidence, 1 remarking that ho was'under tho impression that ' defendant's ' solicitor had stated that-he would not ea.ll evidence. - •Mr. Lyon strenuously asserted that lie had made no. such, "statoment,' and that His Worship, had misapprehended him on .the pointas to hi calling of evidence.' Mr. Lyon again asked that he might be allowed to call further evidence,, but His Worship refused, and, gave judgment for plaintiff fo-i 1 the amount claimed,' with costs. ' LoaVo to appear was granted, and security was fixed at £10 10s. It is understood the case will go to tlio Appeal Court, members of the Foresters' Order having guaranteed costs.