" FRIENDLY " DENTISTS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18566, 26 November 1923, Page 10

" FRIENDLY " DENTISTS

A CLOSE CORPORATION.

MATTER BEFORE COURT.

REFUSE TO GIVE EVIDENCE.

What was described as the close corporation between dentists was referred to in the Christchurch Magistrate's Court, when counsel spoke of the refusal of dentists to give evidence against one another. Mr. H. Y. Widdowson, S.M., presided. Herbert Gresham, surgeon dentist, Colombo Street, claimed £8 4s from L. Smythe, widow, of Amberley, as the balance of an account for a set of teeth supplied. Mr. Tracy, for the defendant, said that he' had discovered that there was a close corporation among dentists, who refused to give evidence against other dentists. When K. H. Fountain, another dentist, went into the box, he asked to be allowed to examine the teeth. (> "No- I won't let you see the teeth, declared Mr. ( Tracy. "Not after what has happened." The Magistrate: Is it true that your association prevents its members from appearing in Court ? The Witness: No. "Supposing vou were asked to appear for this woman," asked Mr. Tracy, "would you have done so?" ."Well, no," was the hesitant response, "I would liavo to sec the case first. It was quite a reasonable fee." Mr. Tracy: How do you know if you haven't seen the job ? _ The Witness: Because it is the ordinary fee for that class of job. I know that it was good material. Mr. Tracv. A member of your profession said" that £12 12s was sufficient for the work. Tho Witness: He did not know tho job. Mr. Tracy: But he saw it. Do you deny that your members refused to give evidence against one another ? The Witness: Yes.

Mr. Tracy: I asked a member of your association " yesterday—and ho was A friend of mineif he would give evidence. Ho said that he would consult others of his brethren in the same building. He did so, took an hour over it, and said that ho could not give evidence.

The Witness: I know no reason. The Magistrate: Subpoena them, that is tho way. The magistrate referred to the fact that Gresham had no difficulty in obtaining the evidence of a brother surgeon dentist. Counsel for the defence

had said that ho had great difficulty in obtaining professional evidence, and the magistrate believed that. It made it very difficult for the Bench to say whether the contract had been performed or not. He would give a Solomon's judgment. Plaintiff would be awarded £6 12s 6d.