AN INTERESTING LAWSUIT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1680, 11 May 1904, Page 60

AN INTERESTING LAWSUIT.

CLAIM FOE MEDICAL FEES'.' In the Magistrate’s Court on the stlu before Dr A. McArthur, S.M., the Commercial Agency, acting as assignee far Dr W. A. Chappie. Wellington, sued Hira Parata far £9l 4s 6d, tea’ professional services rendered by assignor during the illness of defendant’s wife.

Mi- Von Haast wias for plaintiff and Mr Wilford for defendant.

Mir Von Haast explained that the account was for medical attendance, operations performed aind advice for defendant’s wife. The account dated hack three or four years, a great part of the claim being for attendance', etc., in 1900 and 1901. Counsel also'stated that plaintiff, had deducted something like 10 per cent, from the account, and instead of claiming £IOB 17s 6d was suing for £9l 4s 6d.

Dr Chappie was the first witness called.

Mr . Von s Haast: You are a duly qualified medical practitioner residing in W aldington ?—Y es. Counsel: I don’t propose to go over the account in detail. The items have been taken from your day-book?—Yes. Witness further stated that the charges were reasonable, and in accordance with the usual scale of medical fees.

Mr Wilford, in cross-examination, asked witness if it was 'his custom in attending patients to make contracts with them by which they were to do oertain work for him in consideration of has performing oertain services for them.

Witness: No. Mr Wilford: Has it ever occurred that you have made a contract with an individual! when you have Ibsen attending him for payment in other than money ?—Certainly not in 'this case.

Mr Von Haast submitted this had nothing to do with the case before the Court.

Met Wilfoird, to witness: Do you toll has Worship you have not made a contract with anyone for payment of an account other than in money?-—;I can’t remember any single instance. On reflection I may say I : have not. Mir Wilford: Well. I 'will mention the case of John Plimimer —-

Mir Von Haosfc: I object. Mr Wilford: This is an extraordinary case and I want to bring out a certain phase of the action. If I ©am bring out certain facts, I submit I am entitled to do so, and to alairn credence therefor, in relation to thetir bearing on this. case. You (addressing witness) S|y you never made a contract with Jolih* Himmer. Witness: Never. Did he give you aTnotor-cair?. —Never. Did he nolb?—Certainly- nek Not to pay your account ?—-Certainly* not.

You know Mr Field, solicitor?—Ye®. You know a property at Wiaikanae which you purchased and subsequently eol.d to him?—Yes.

Mns Barata was in private lodgings <i:fc Clifton House—a place above your 1 residence in Willis street—at a time when you were attending: her ?—Yes. Did she send for you or did she go to

you herself? —I presume she oaime herself. She comsullted me and I examined her.

Yiou say she went into Clifton House at yauir suggestion?—l array have suggested she should go there. Did you suggest when you visited Mrs Parata at Clifton House that you would attend her on the understanding that she should use her influence to get you oertain land at Waikamae ?

Witness replied that 'he had suggested nothing of the land to either Mrs Parrata or any of her people. S*o far as the land referred to was concerned, he could explain to the Court that it was offered for sale and subsequently withdrawn. After this took place, either Mrs Parata or Mr Parata came to him and stated that lie (witness) could have the land if lie wanted it.

Did you say if they could get this land for you there would be nothing to pay for medical attendance? —No. Did you give Mrs Parata £25, or did your wife subsequently give her £25?--I sent my wife over with £25, which was equal to 5 per cent, commission on the purchase-money. The land was sold to me through Parata’s agency, and 1 gave the money quite spontaneously. Did you say to either Mr or Mrs Parata that if they succeeded in getting the Maoris interested to agree to the sale of the land in question you would attend Mrs Parata for nothing?—l never said any such thing. Did you promise Mrs Parata a carriage you had—a carriage which you said would hold two, and which you did not want to* sell ?—I do not remember.

Will you deny it? —I can’t remember.

But think—did you or did you not ? I am quite ready to have my memory prompted. Well, did you tell Mrs Parata when she was ill you would give her a dogcart?—l don’t remember ever having done so.

Now, when the matter of the sale of this land was before the Native Land Court did you tell Hira Parata to‘ say when he was giving his evidence he was* not interested in the deal in the matter, commission or otherwise? —No, certainly not. How could I have done so ? I had already paid for his services. In answer to further questions, witness said he originally purchased: the land for £SOO. and sold it for £2OOO to Mr Field, but a sum of £I2OO was expended in litigation, which was still proceeding. As a matter of fact, lie was a loser on the whole transaction. He did not want it to go forth that he had simply bought the land for £SOO and sold it for £2OOO. The land was the subject of a lease. In addition to expenses referred to there was a lawyer’s bill yet to come in. Proceeding, witness said he could not say if he mentioned to Mr Parata that he doubted if the native who owned the land “could be got to sign.” Mr Parata brought three natives ai4d an interpreter to his (witness’s) house from Waikanae. Mr Parata had previously informed him that they were anxious to seli. He paid a deposit of £IOO on the purchase-money at the time.

Mr Wilford: Is it a fact that you told Mr Parata that if he was successful m getting this land for you, you would not only treat his wife for whatever was wrong with her. but you would do the right thing by him?—Certainly not. Are you aware that Mr Field offered £IOO commission to Hira Parata if he could succeed in getting this laud for him? —No. I never beard of it.

Is it not a fact that the whole of the accounts between yourself and Hira Parata were considered to be squared?— No, certainly not.

In answer to further questions, witness said it was not a fact that he had two homes grazing on Parata’s land for two years. He had one on land which he considered be had purchased—land which was still subject to a decision of the Court. Witness did not know that Parata had fed the horse, but if he had done so he could send in an account, and it would be considered.

“Well, Mr Parata considers the grazing was worth £l3 10s,” intea’jected counsel. “Did you ever offer to pay him?”—Witness: No. You have stopped at Parata’s accommodation house?—Yefe. You did not pay ?—I beg your pardon, I did.

You never stayed there without paying?—Never at Mr Parata’s public accommodation house. I stayed one night at his private house about four years ago.

Further examined, witness stated he had never, in manner or otherwise, led defendant to believe the account was being settled in consideration of a contract..

Re-examined by Mr Von Haast: You understood Barata was aating in the matter of the sale otf the land as agent for the natives?—Yes.

The reason you paid this £25 was Jbeeaiu’se it was fair dealing between man and man?—Yes, I would have had to pay 5 per cent, in any case. Continuing, witness said his horses were grazing on land which lie considered to be his own. The fences were destroyed, and if his horses had been grazing on defendant’s land, defendant's horses had been grazing on his. This closed the case far the plaintiff. . Mr Wilford -claimed a nonsuit. Section 19 of the Medical Prac(honors’ Re-

gistration Act, 1869, he said, states:-—* “No person shall he entitled to recover any charge in any Court of law in the coloniy for any medical or surgical advice or attendance, or for the performance of any operation, or for any medicine which he shall have both prescribed and supplied, unless ho shall prove on. trial that he iis registered/’ Section 6 of the same Act stated: —“On applioa»tion made to him at any time for that purpose by any medical practitioner, the Registrar-Genera!. or Registrar, aa the case may be, shall issue to such applicant a certificate of registration.”"*' Counsel said it had not been proved that plaintiff was registered. Consequently, he could not reoovar. Mr Von Haast said it was absurd to question Dr Chappie’s qualifications. Ho submitted the argument of his friend could not be set up.

Mr Wilford: You never asked him if ho was registered. His Warship said he would reservo his ruling on the point. Mr Wilford said he was instructed to press the point, and to take it to the Supreme Court if necessary. He wished to have a decision before proceeding further. His Worship said he would give judgment on the point on Tuesday. Further hearing of the case was thereupon adjourned until the 10th