A LODGE DOCTOR’S CLAIM

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 218, 9 June 1921, Page 6

A LODGE DOCTOR’S CLAIM

JUDGMENT FOR. MEDICAL INSTITUTE. Reserved judgment was delivered yesterday morning by Mr. E. Page, S.M., in the case of Dr. G. O. Jacobsen against the Wellington United Friendly Societies’ Medical Institute. Dr. Jacobsen sought to recover 4172 18s. 4d., on the ground that one of the doctors employed by the institute was struck off the roll, that plaintiff and one other doctor earned on the work of the institute, and that according to a prior arrangement he was entitled to half the salary of the third doctor, for the period of the vacancy, from November 1, 1920, to January 15, 1921. The defence was that the arrangement referred to by plaintiff was made at the outset, but was not renewed when it was decided to' reduce 1 the number of medical officers of the institute from four to three. In reviewing the case the .Magistrate Baid that in October, 1916, the plaintiff came to New Zealand as one of four medical officers employed by the institute. In December, 1916, one of the medical officers resigned, and for a period of three and a half months the remaining three doctors carried on the work, and the question of extra payment was then raised. The plaintiff contended that it was at this time agreed that in the event of there being at any time fewer than four medical officers, the medical work would be carried on by the remaining men, and the additional •alary would bo divided amongst such remaining men. "The question to be decided," remarked His Worship, "is whether the evidence establishes that such an agreement was at any time made ' between the parties." After reviewing the evidence the Magistrate pointed out that the defendant admitted that on two occasions during the absence of a medical officer his salary was divided amongst the remaining doctors, of whom plaintiff was one, and it was claimed ihafTbn each such occasion this was done by virtue of a separate agreement made on each occasion and applicable to such occasion only. The onus was on the plaintiff to establish the case he had set up, and in the 'Magistrate’s opinion he had failed to do so. Judgment was accordingly given for defendant, with eoats and expenses totalling 4111. At tlie hearing, Mr. H. F. O’Leary appeared for tho plaintiff and Mr. R. Kennedy for the institute.