RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Grey River Argus, Volume XXXII, Issue 5359, 2 December 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

■ ■ Tuesday, December 1. '" ■ .(Before. Major keddejl, R.M.) • iNIAGCAKTHY V. BISHOP. ■'■ iHis Worship delivered judgment in this, case-as' follows :— : In thiascase the plea of ■ not -indebted must be taken to have meant from the onset, ,more as a denial of the claim as set forth ■■'■'b'y 1 ' the plaintiff than a' complete denial of any indebtedness whatsoever." It is clear (indeed admitted) that the' plaintiff rendered some'service at the request of the defendant; and it is forthe court^o assess and determine the sum which the ■defendant" should pay for these rservices. -After, hearing the. professional' evidence as to -the' practice; of , medical men, and the eitiquette observed in cases like the one whiclrn^ay /be said gave rise to the present , acpion, and the other evidence adduced, I have no doubt in concluding ..■•that, the written order of the;: defendant relieves me from having to "decide r the nice questipruof the relative merits of the plaintiff ancfDr Smiffi with regard;. to the charge ofrthe^ratness.Dunn, .when injured. Dr AchesoiTana Smith have both testified as to the practice here when acting for an absent, fello.w^ractitioner ; but ? inihe case *liey. instant the engagement 'jof^those; services, were pot so clear-as in tEepresent. The plaintiff could as well oh ihe' 27th July as ,on,,the. 28th July have Stated that he ' wodld only undertake such a case. .on, rthe n condition.: that he, .should remain in' sole ; charge. In the written order, .which/^vas made at his, request, it is * clearly shewn that* his services were only required'eluririg tli'e temporary absence of Dr Sniith. Hib duty then, I think, was to decline the case : altogethe^ Having accepted the order, he was clearly^ only engaged until the arrival of ; Dr Smith. I I am therefore of /opinion that- he can only . claim for.his. 'services oh the 27th and 28th. i The next. aijK.inain . question is—What were ' those services ? Dr MacOarthy's evidence is that Dunn was suffering from a. dislocation of the hip, and that he reduced the dislocation by means described and usual in such cases, and this evidence is - not - assailed : by < - positive testimony The other medical witnesses ally rfgree that such a!n operation is ? a paialui one,

' :1 !ik 'v. ir t!u. patient is. conscious i c.i.\M iiiiu to utter cries and groans, ttc. The evidence of a witness present while Dunn was under the plainciffs hands was to the effect that he did groan, though he did not suffer apparently so much then as before the doctor manipulated him ; but such eviderce cannot stand before the sworn evidence of the plaintiff as to the naiure of the injuries J.»4.J(M.Jiteato^ that they were "as stated, arid that an bpe : ration was performed. The plaintiff and Dr Acheson differ in their evidence as to the subsequent treatment of such cases ; the plaintiff, insisting on the importance and absolute necessity of frequent visits afterwards, while Dr Acheson states that the main duty of the surgeon is the reduction of the dislocation, and that any subsequent visit paid is merely for his satisfaction to see that his orders have been obeyed, the limb kept in position, &c. ' 1 agree with this witness, and from the evidence I am of opinion that the principal service in this case was rendered on the 27th, by the plaintiff. As to the quantum mcruit of the services, it appears from the medical evidence that there are; degrees in such cases, the fair remuneration being from £55 to £10 10s. I should judge. from the evidence that this case was 'a simple one ot its kind, requiring no operation, ;as sometimes is necessary. I must jbe guided also in estimating the • remuneration by the statement made by the plaintiff to Dr Smith, which was not questioned, I cannot but think that the unusual course of allowing the injured man to lie until the defendant had supplied the doctor with a written order! is suggestive of a previous misunderstanding, and that the maximum charge had been made in consequence. I ''assess the fee for the operation at £5 ss, and give judgment for that amount with costs, £10 &s.