S.M. Court.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 8070, 22 August 1905, Page 8

S.M. Court.

PALMERSTON—TUE SDAY.

(Before Mr A. D. Thomson, S.tf). CIVIL CASES. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs was entered in the following undefended casts: — A. Scott (Mr Harden) v. J. Day, £2 5s costs and fee 10s; U.F.C.A. (Mr Hankins) v. W. C. Webb, £4 3s 6d, costs and fee 10s ; T. C. Fowler (Mr Meatyard) v. Bakoivf Bros., £1 17s, costs ss; C. Smith (Mr :T. Baldwin) v. E. O'Brien, £4 ss, costs'los ; Mrs Maguire (Mr Moore) v.W. Edwards £5 ss, costs 23s Gd. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. S. C. Spencer v. 11. A. Crabtrce, £9 18s. Order .made for payment oi' 30s per month ; first payment next Friday. ! DEFENDED CASES.

J. B. Clarkson (Mr Cooper) v. J. Seymour, claim £20, value of a bicycle sold to the defendant. Defendant took exception to tho claim on the ground that the machine was faulty, several o): the parts being loose, according to aim. Nothing was paid ou the machine. Evidence was given on behalf of tho plaintiff to the effect that the machine was in good order; that defendant subsequently complained the crank was loose, that the latter was tightened and the machine returned in good order to the defendant; further that the machine was still in good order. On counsel's application the claim was altered to one for hire and judgment was giveu for the plaintiff for £6, with 31s costs. A. l rule (Mr P. Baldwin) v. J. Shapleski (Mr Prior), claim £5 16s 6d, value of metal supplied by plaintiff to the defendant.

Prior to the facts of the case being gone into, counsel argued a point of law as to whether the plaintiff had power to sell the metal. It appeared the land from which the metal came was a leasehold, and the owner, Mr Farmer, contended the lessee hac'U no power to sell.metal. If the-Court held the same view Mr Baldwin admitted his case must. fail.

The S.M. over-ruled the point, aud without calling evidence tlie case was .adjourned till next Court day. Alex. Patterson" (Mr Loughnan) v. W Welch (Mr Baldwin), claim £87 medical fees for attendance on the defendant's daughter. Dr Rockstrow, called on behalf of the defence, said that it was at his suggestion that Dr Patterson was called in to treat the patient in the present case. He thought a fair charge for attendance would be from 7s Gd to 10s ncr visit. In a long case, however, he would not charge for every visit, even though he might call two or three times per day. He would call for his own satistaction to sec how the patient progressed. I-f.l^e had.beeninjpjiiantiff's position he would have charged about 40 guineas. He would have been satisfied with that amount for anything he had done.

Cross-examined by Mr Loughnan witness said he called with Dr Patterson ou more than one occasion iv connection with the patient aud ho also went on occasions for his own satisfaction. He saw the abscesses, thought they were dangerous, and considered plaintiff dressed them skilfully. It did not take him au hour to dress any of them, not at least, when witness 'was present. In a case of dressing abscesses witness thought 10s Gd would uot be too much per visit, but in an ordinary case of illness 7s Gd would be enough He would not charge less than is ■ Gd per visit, but at the end of a long illness he would make a concession in tlie charge. He had suggested the employment of a nurse before the abscesses, but Mrs Welch decided ro nu._e her daughter. Witness did .not subsequently suggest a nurse. Re-examined witness ■ said a moderately skilled person could have dressed the abscesses in half-ari-hour. He did not think apprehension as to septic poisoning or embolism rendered extra visits necessary, b.cause the symptoms could uot be foreseen.

A. J. Graham, manager for Lcary's lharmacy, gave evidence as to the listed prices of various drugs used in the treatment of the case. The evidence of the ' last witless closed the case for the defence After hearing counsel on"" various points in the case the S.M. said no good purpose could be served by postponing ludgmeut. He said be waVquiti satislied the visits had been made and that they were necessary. He knew it was the usual thing with medical practitioners t) charge a lump sum for a prolonged case and he gave judgment for the plamtift for £50 with costs, iv all £7 14s. '