CHAPPLE V. PLIMMER

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1681, 18 May 1904, Page 18

CHAPPLE V. PLIMMER

CLAIM FOR £IBB AND COUNTER CLAIM. SOKE STRANGE ALLEGATIONS. AN INTERESTING CASE. In the Magistrate’s Court on the 10th, before Dr A. McArthur, S.M., an action «ras commenced in which William_ - ' Kin Chappie, medicai practitioner, WelWten ened John Plimmer. widely known * as the “father of Wellington, lor £IBB Os 6d. for professional services tendered by plaintiff to defendant dnr- . r fng the period between Decembei. 1900, 4 and March 1903. T)r Findlay appeared for plaintiff, and ‘ Mr W. H. Quick for defendant, who counter-claimed as follows: (1) The fendant, by way of ?°£ n j :er ' cla ?:{f- ?q?u that during the period between the 13tn day of. December, 1900, and the 28th day of March, 1903. the defendant occasionally employed the plaintiff as a qualified medical practitioner for reward to alleviate or cure certain maladies incident to the defendant’s extreme old age, from which maladies the defendant, dui> ing the period aforesaid, . sometimes suffered, and the plaintiff conducted himself so unskilfully by administering medicines and drugs to the defendant, not fitted to be administered to the defendant in his state of ill-health, that the defendant was greatly injured in health and constitution, and - great suffering m body and mind, (2) That during the time that plaintiff was acting as medical adviser as aforesaid, he took advantage of his visits to the defendant, in that capacity, to induce or' encourage the defendant, who was then enfeebled by extreme age, to enter into a speculation in land involving the expenditure of large sums of money, m which speculation he, the plaintiff, participated for his own gain, and the el- —~ feet of this speculation was to cans© '■ the defendant worry and anxiety, so that the defendant was much imured m health and constitution, and underwent great suffering both in body and mind. And the defendant claims to recover from the plaintiff the snm of <£2oo. Dr Findlay opened the case for plain- • tiff in a-long address.. He referred to; the fact that it. was unfortunate that an old man should be forced into Court in the declining years of‘his life, but 'the blame of this was not to be attributed to plaintiff. Counsel then went on t 6 say that allegations of a most serious and far-reaching character touching tlie - personal and professional honour of mis client had been made against him. For reasons set forth in the counter-claim the 'case accordingly assumed a gravity " which it otherwise did not possess. The; facts wer§ that for ' six' or seven years defendant had suffered from the* infirmities usually attendant on extreme aid age, He chose as his medical man he Chappie.' Only once since then had defendant been attended by another doctor, and that was on an occasion when Dr Collins was called in. Three or four years ago Mr Plimmer was affected with gall-stones and jaundice. The patient was ninety years of age, The malady from which he was suffering -would cause intense pain, accompanied by vomiting, heart-failure, and occasionally collapse. Until the early part of last year the treatment adopted to relieve the pain was hypodermic injections of morphia, and he believed the evidence would show that the treatment adopted was that recognised by the best 'and most skilful practitioners. When the patient was commencing to recover 'and the pain subsided, Dr Chappie endeavoured to reduce the hypodermic doses, but the patient- rejected food and moderate-injections had again to be retorted to. At the same time he wished . to make;.it perfectly plain that Dr .Chappie was fully aware that the treatment was' not to be used except where the exigencies of tho case demanded; and he also wished to make, it plain that the treatment of which he spoke was not regular. As soon as the need for it declined, so soon was it stopped. Invariably the doses were administered in half quantities—a half-dose in' the 'morning and some more late at night. Two visits per day were usually paid. This course was agred on in deference to the express wish of the patient, ’though the plaintiff was very reluctant to do so. At one time as a morning visit was made merely for the purpose of injecting morphia,'Dr Chappie sent his dispenser ' (his sister) to the patient to perform the injection, and so satisfied was the patient with the arrangement that he agreed the lady, should continue so to 1 act. No charge, whatever, was made for this. Mr Plimmer was a man of generous impulse. It was true he had given Dr Chappie’s sister something for what she had done, and it was true'also that she had continued the morning visits * for some time. Under the circumstances it might so happen that some of these visits had been included in the account. If they had he was quite prepared to have the items struck out. In no case were the attendances more than the urgency- of the case demanded, and in no case did the fees exceed those laid down by the Medical Association. There was no reason why a man who (including the property he had disbursed amongst 'his children) owned an estate worth £IOO,OOO should not pay reasonable fees : -io his doctor. The counter-claim struck • at the root of his client’s character and honour. * He would tell his Worship, first, that the charges contained therein i were never thought of bv Mr Plimmer himself; secondly, that they were the invention of certain of his sons, and thirdly, that they were not bona, fide, but a base attempt to ruin his clients professional reputation. Counsel referred to the part Dr Chappie had taken V at the last city licensing elections, and stated that" in consequence of his actions defendant’s sons brought about his ; dismissal as their father’s medical at- ' -j- tendant. At that time there was no complaint about Dr Chappie’s “unskilful treatment." His views were object- ;; " ed to. Dealing with the allegation that : plaintiff had used his professional pojition to put money in his own pocket,

he said the matter was one which might fittingly be treated with contempt and ridicule. The fact was that Mr Plimmer, by the transaction vaguely hinted at in the counter-claim, had benefited to the extent of being placed in possession, of £30,000 worth of property. If the charge' was true, it would be contemptible, if it was untrue, it would be more contemptible. The Manawatu Railway Company, he went on to say, offered for sale a 1 large portion of the Makerua Swamp. His client thought it was an attractive investment and after speaking to one or two of his niedical colleagues finally decided to attempt the purchase. No man in Wellington had a better knowledge of the Manawatu than Mr Plimmer, and when the matter was mentioned to him he was so enamoured with the scheme that he urged Dr Chappie to go on with tho proposed purchase. The “inducement’’ was all on the part of Mr Plimmer, who made persistent attempts to expedite the purchase. In fact when Dr Chappie tendered for the’ land at £2 10s per acre, defendant insisted that tho oiler should be £3, because he said the land could not be got at the lower figure. The terms of sale were: Ten per cent, of the purchase money in cash and the balance in seven years, bearing interest at five per cent. Certain improvements were also to be carried out and guarantors were asked to guarantee that, the conditions as to improvements would be adhered to. In consequence of this it was arranged subsequently that the purchase money should be paid in cash, though Dr Chappie rvas unwilling to give up the advantages under the contract. Owing to a flood on the property the flaxmillers interested in the speculation withdrew, and plaintiff gave security to the bank (which advanced the purchase money) for £BSOO and Mr Plimmer for £20,000. Defendant was strongly urged by his son, Mr J. A. Plimmer, to withdraw from the speculation before the transaction wais clinched with plaintiff’s personal cheque for £IOOO, but he stoutly refused to do so. It was nonsense to come to Court and say the defendant had been induced to enter into a speculation through the wiles of lus (counsel’s) client—a speculation which involved the expenditure of £BOOO of defendant’s money and returned him a profit of £30,000. He asked his Worship to test the bona fides of the case. The statements made against his client were a discredit to the sons of aJ worthy father. He referred to the position his client was in—he rvas on his trial before the public of Wellington—and he (counsel) noped the 'Would give the case the serious attention it demanded. DR CHAPPLE’S EVIDENCE.

William Allan Chappie, plaintiff, said he was a., medical practitioner, residing in Wellington. He was called to attend defendant in 1896. Up to the time of his dismissal in March of last year defendant had no other medical attendant except on four occasions when witness was unable to attend, and Dr Collins then visited. Some time before October, 1900, the patient was suffering from gall stones, a malady which occasioned excruciating pain, vomiting and jaundice. Mr Plimmer had all these symptoms. The prostrations after an attack were so bad as to seriously threaten his life. Witness gave him hypodermic injections of atropine and morphia. The immediate effect of this would be cessation of pain, a more regular pulsation, and perhaps a cessation of vomiting. The treatment was not only the proper treatment, but was universal. At times there .were intervals when the patient required no injections. It was only during the latter part of' witness’s attendance that the injections were continuous. He was speaking of txie end of 1902. The medicines administered were bismuth and pepsine. These were stomach sedatives and were required to keep the patient’s assimilation good. There was nothing in the treatment which witness would not prescribe again tomorrow. Owing to the severitv of the attacks it was frequently necessary to give continuous injections. Patients were sometimes liable to over-rate their pain. At times witness had injected cocaine and other drugs and even pure water to note the effects, and invariably the patient sent round during the night to say •he was in great pain. These methods were of necessity adopted to ascertain the exact condition of the patient. On his own initiative witness reduced the dose to a sixth of a grain during the last six weeks of his attendance. At first it was administered only once per day—at night. Mr Plimmer, however, maintained that the reduction to half dose treatment did not give him sufficient relief, and in response to an urgent request witness administered injections in the morning and evening—half dose at each time. W i i' a view to carrying out this arrangement it was agreed that witness’s dispenser- - his sister—should adminsteirj tho Injection. For this witness Tied imulu no charge. He believed Ml* pllmiuoi' bod fiven his sister a cheque for The reatment continued until wiliitesu tvon dismissed. Defendant Iwristed on plaintiff coming to his hoit'se beiweMu 9 p.ni, and 10 p.m. Nightly alien do nee won wr» lied on during the greater port of 1903 and the early part of 1003. Very frequently witness woo obliged to nr! the part of a professional itUroe, Often, also, owing to the manner lit wliinh ‘Mr Plimmer demanded bio n lien donee, witness was obliged to leave bin rowntiling room fuLLoi patients and our render his professional and social eiigogetnenlo, For a long time Miss Wilson (uniondan tie) housemaid) and witness wore Mr PUni* mer’s sole attendants. In the Inter stages, a nurse, if one had been engimed, could have reduced the number of attendances, but defendant absolutely refused to have a skilled nurse. Tho patient was steadily bettering during tho early part of 1903, and was able to bo about. In 1902 he was often at death’s door. In September, 1902, witness received a letter from him in which he expressed thanks for the manner in which he had been attended. The statements in the counter claim about unskilful treatment, were absolutely untrue. All visits for which he had charged a guinea were bona fide ntoht visits, or special consultations. The fees were those laid down by the Medical Association. Witness had given credit for all moneys he had received from defendant. The balance set forth was what was actually owing to him.' So far as the

counter-claim was concerned he thought Mr Plimmer wouJd have a fit if he saw it.

Mr Quick interjected that Mr Plimmer had seen the counter-claim —it had been read over to him. He thought a reflec-: tion was now being cast on his own character Dr Findlay said that anyone who had appeared with Mr Quick in a case would be slow to question his motives. No reference was made to counsel. Touching on the swamp transaction, Dr Chappie said he saw the advertisement about the sale in 1902 L He wrote a circular to about a dozen people who were acquainted with flax land. Mr John Plimmer was not one of these. t Witness saw about eight of the wealthy citizens of Wellington, but they had not much time to consider his proposition. Witness found ten flaxmillers willing to go- into the speculation. These came forward without pressure. He could not recall how he first came to discuss the transaction with Mr Plimmer. Probably in the course of conversation he (witness) had told plaintiff what he was doing. Defendant said he was willing to make one of the purchasers. As to the “inducement” charge, witness did not see how it would have been possible to have kept Mr Plimmer out of the speculation without offending him. He did not think Mr Plimmer was mentally feeble. He was perfectly capable of determining the possibilities of the scheme. On the strength of getting Mr Kirkcaldie and some flaxmillers to enter into the speculation, he (witness) made an offer of £2 10s per acre for the swamp, and accompanying the tender was his own private cheque for £IOOO. Defendant wanted tlie tender to be at £3, thinking that the land could not be got at the lower price. Before witness became a party to tbe venture he had the advantage of conferences with Mr Kirkcaldie. Witness’s resistance in holding out to tender at £2 10s meant a saving to Mr Plimmer on his share mf £2OOO. The total purchase money was £31,000. This arrangement was ratied with the Manawatu Company, but, instead of tlie terms mentioned previously, it was suggested that a cash payment for the whole purchase should be ma'de. Mr Plimmer agreed to this. The bank was • approached, and £31,000 was obtained. Witness had already paid £IOOO, and pledged the title deeds of his property in Willis street, which he valued at £8,500, as security for the other portion of his holding in the syndicate. Witness was interested to the extent of £II,OOO in the deal, and Mr Plimmer about £12,000. The balance was held by other shareholders. Before witness’s offer was accepted there was a flood on the land, and, the flaxmillers who had gone into the scheme resigned in a body. Almost immediately witness received a telegram from Mr J. A. Plimmer, calling attention to the fact that the land was under water, and suggesting that his father’s holding should be reduced to £IOOO. Accordingly, witness called on defendant, and asked if it was his wish to withdraw. He scouted the idea—in fact, still wanted to make the offer <£3. The speculation duly fructified, and the result wa3 that £50.000 worth of land had been sold, and there were 9000 acres left. Worked out on the basis that the syndicate was at present being offered £lO per acre for the land, and that they were expecting £ls,' Mr Plimmer had benefited to the extent of £30,000 by the speculation. Witness was a candidate for election to the Licensing Committee last year. Mr Plimmer accused him of “siding” with people who were opposed to his interests, and requested him to retire. Witness said he could not think of doing.any such thing; and shortly after he announced his candidature the ultimatum of defendant’s sons was communicated to witness. Defendant’s sons refused to visit the defendant if he did not discharge his medical attendant. The sons were interested in various hotels. Witness had identified himself with the prohibition party. Up to--this tipie no allegation of ill-treat-ment was urged against him. He had never been accused of influencing the mind of his patient one way or another. In point of fact, he was dismissed by the sons, and not by the father. On account of his opinions on matters referred to they had expressed their objection to him m most emphatic language. The letter in which he was dismissed was signed by Isaac. John and Charles Plimmer. In it he was requested to discontinue his visits as no improvement was noticeable in defendant’s condition, and it was desired to obtain other medical advice.. CROSS-E(XAMINATTON. Cross-examined by Mr Quick: Witness had studied in England, but had never practised outside New Zealand. The items in tho account were taken from his books, which were entered np every night. Tho attendances from December, 1900, to .I lino, 1901, wore not frequent. For the periods mentioned there was a balance duo of £ll odd. Witness admitted that ho received a ehequo for £24, in payment of attendants from as far hack as 1898. Defendant's ill nesses then were of a very uiinplo nature. From Juno 17, 1901, to Ma.V 21, 1902. tho cost of attendances amounted to £SB Is. For tho two years previous to thill tho charges totalled £36 KV». Witness accounted for tho discrepancy between tho attendances for the II rot two yearn and thoso for eleven moil Ihn miooootling by tho fact that the patient was much worse in the latter period The item in tho account “Health report*' wan In reference to a letter he wrote to the Oily Council asking that body not to ho rims the defendant about oerl'ttln building regulations,, which lie seemed to think wore prossmg hardly upon him.

f Mir Quick: I see that on the 15th May you charge for live night visits and one operation. How do you account for this? , ~ , ~ "Witnoss replied that it was very easy to got five night visits in twenty-four hours if a doctor called on his patient at 1 a.m., and continued calling late into the next night. , . Mr Quick: But you have three hay visits" for the succeeding day. Witness interjected that Dr CoHins had visited the patient four times in one-day After explaining various account, witness went on to say ing the time he was attending Mr Plim

mer the patient was frequently in danger of dying, Mr Quick: You charge him £lO4 8s for two months’ attendance. Now, were you not present on his birthday P Witness replied that he was. In answer to questions by counsel, he stated that on the occasion referred to he had helped Mr Plimmer from his place of abode down to “Cornwall House”'(at the top of Plimmer’s Steps). There was some festivity and ceremony. Mr Quick: Yes; he made some presents on that day, did he notp Witness: Yes. He made a presentation to your daughter! P—Yea. You presented him with a walking stick ?—Yes, that is probably so. Now during this vigorous time do you think your patient required two or three visits per day?—Witness replied that at intervals there were periods when a man suffering from gall stones might he quite normal and yet be dead within twentyfour. hours. Well he was vigorous enough to make a speech that day. You charged him £2 2s for the day’s- work P—That was my privilege. You visited him twice, during the day, and once at night during this vigorous time; I suppose you charged for taking him down to Cornwall House on your arm ?—I don’t think yon can say that. Proceeding, witness stated that the items in the account referring to attendance by Dr Kendall were necessitated owing to the fact that defendant’s eye* sight required attention. Witness wai indebted to Dr Kendall for £1 Is for his services on the occasion referred to. Mr Quick: You charge here for con—, sultation. Does “consultation’’ in the ordinary acceptation of the term not mean a conference with another medical man?—Not necessarily. Someone may have consulted me about him. In answer to further questions he said he had never visited defendant except when it was necessary. Tho visits were made at the patient’s own request and to suit his convenience,-not witness’s. During the period that witness was visiting Mi* Plimmer he admitted he had visited Australia. He was out of the colony for ten days during Mr Plimmer’s illness. Mr Quick: But you have charged for attendances in your statement of claim from day to day! How do you account for that P—-Well I had a locum tenens. And did he attend the patient ?—No doubt the items were entered in the day book by bim. Now don’t you know your locum tenens never visited Mr Plimmer’s house ?—I don’t know that. • Was your sister not your locum tenens from the time you left for Australia ? That is not so. Perhaps (examining the day-book), it was your sister who charged the. guinea for these visits ! These items are not in your handwriting. How do you account for that P —Well it just occurs to me that the locum tenens would present his report. and the items would be entered up by the doctor himself. Now who .was your locum tenens ? Witness, after examining his book said, “Dr McLean." You tell the Court you made up your books from memoranda supplied by your locum tenens? —Yes; he would pay tho visits. .. . Do you tell me he i ©ported he paid these visits ? If he did not ; how do you come to put them down ?—Well, if he arranged that.my sister should go the visit would be entered up. I explained before that perhaps some of the visits should be struck out of the claim. Is your sister a registered nurse ? —No. Did defendant not give her a present of £25 P—l have already said so. And you charge one guinea for her visits. Did she.not also get a silk dress costing £7 from the old man ?—I believe she did. After some further questions Dr Findlay said it would save time to have the items struck out. Witness: Yes. Dr Findlay: And pay for the silk dress 1 At this stage hearing of the case was adjourned until 10 o’clock next morning. FURTHER HEARING OF THE CASE. PROFESSIONAL DIFFERENCES. The hearing of the case was resumed last Wednesday morning; Before cross-examination of Dr Chappie was resumed by defendant’s counsel. Dr Findlay isaid the examinationof Dr Chappie by Mr Quick had not disclosed what the precise objection to the treatment adopted was. He understood it was some objection to the hypodermic treatment. As he wished to call Dr Collins to allow of his evidence being token, at once, he (conns©!) would bo obliged if his friend would meet him by explaining. Mr Quick said Dr Chappie had told the Court what treatment he had prescribed. Under the circumstances he took it that his friend would examine Dr Collins as to whether that treatment was the right treatment. .... ~ V Dr Findlay: Well, I take it now that the treatment explained by Dr Chappie yesterday is tlie treatment objected to. _ Mr Quick!?Yes. I may have to call endence as to quantities.

RESUMPTION OF CROSS-EKAMINA-

TION.

Plaintiff’s cross-examination by Mr Quick was then proceeded with. Counsel asked: When you were mb ydney you said Dr McLean n as y ‘“Siess repliedl that he new fonnd that Drs McLean and Teare had ac-teci lor Mm They divided most of his cases during the eleven days he was away He went on to say that he ws m doubt as to the precise number of times his sister had visited Mr Plimmer, but he was quite willing that the charges should be struck out foi* the eleven days referred to. Mr Quick: Did you give Dr McLean or Dr Tear© any instructions about the ease? Yes. Instructions that Mr Plimmer was suffering from gall stone®?—Yes. Did you tell them, or either of them, that it was necessary to visit the patient twice daily?—Witness replied in effect.

that he could not say exactly. To whom did you allot the patient?— To Dr Teare. . - Dealing with the purchase of the Makerua swamp, witness said the tender was at £2 10s per acre. The purchase would be completed on July 18th. _ The first conveyance was made out to Plimmer and Chappie. - Counsel asked if at this time it was not- a fact that defendant and plaintiff were the only persons interested in tho swamp transaction? Witness said that was not so. When the flaxmillers withdrew from the venture the question arose as to whether the balance of shares eliould be taken up by Mr Plimmer and witness. Defendant suggested that Mr S. Kirkcaldie and the flaxmillers should provide £2ooo— Quick: And that you and Mr Plimmer should take the balance? Witness: Mr Plimmer suggested that we should then share the balance equally. Witness said he was unable to take up such a large holding, but would take <£12,000 worth. The remainder could be given to the flaxmillerts and other shavehold era. Defendant was then the holder of an interest of <£19.000 in the venture. Both agreed that it was too good a thing to lose, and they agreed to complete the purchase and adjust subsequently. Mr Quick: This took place between June and July, 1902 ?—The purchase was completed somewhere about that time. Was the matter financed through the Bank of New South Wales?—Yes. That was Mr Plimmer’s bank?—Yes; and mine, and Mr Kirkcaldie’s. Was it yours before this took place?— Yes.

And the security you lodged was the deeds of your ®house in Upper Willis street?—Yes. Dr Chappie left the box at this stage, to admit of Dr Collins’s evidence (which appears below) being taken. On resuming the witness said* Mr Plimmer was always proud of the part he had taken in the speculation. Defendant used to speak frequently about illusions he said he had. “Perhaps he meant the counter-claim,” suggested the witness. .. Mr Quick: Did he not talk wildly?— No more wildly than he invariably did about the Manawatu railway. He spoke about ministering angels. Perhaps he meant his solicitor. Was he n.ot in the habit of repeating this story ad nauseam?—Yes. He thought he heard voices saying to him, “Now is the day of your prosperity returned to you,” or something similar? —I don’t know what he used to say, but apparently “the voices” were a ’very good guide! And the constant burden of his song was this Makerua swamp transaction?— No; the City Council was his chief source of trouble. -Makerua was a constant source of joy. - , . Continuing, witness said defendant told these strange stories during the time he was suffering an attack, but he was never utiable to understand, and had 1 very little to do with the conduct of the transaction.

Mr Quick -. Yes, he supplied the money! Witness: I say he did not. He not only did not supply the money, but he refused to pay hia calls. Speaking with great heat, witness said counsel was making an absolutely unfair and unjustifiable accusation. The company, he went on* to say, was turned into a joint stock company. .

Is it not a fact that he wanted to lay out a township in the middle of the swamp?—He wanted to build a hotel or something of the kind. Was it not a fact?—He wanted to give a section to the Church of England, but found he had no power. Witness detailed the circumstances of this intention or wish of defendant, and told how he was forced to abandon it because he could not obtain the sanction of the other shareholders. Mr Quick: You did all the work regarding this transaction?—l did all the initial work until Mr Kirkcaldie joined. I find Mr Sydney Kirkcaldie went into the venture to the tune of <£7ooo?—Yes. You value your house at '<£Bsoo or =£B6oo ? —Yes. ; . And Mr Plimmer gave security for the balance?—l believe he did, quite spontaneously. How many shares have you got in the company ?—ll2l. And Mr Plimmer?—l447 I think. ‘ So you are almost neck and neck in the transaction, despite the outstanding fact of the security ?—I gave my personal bond _ as well,* ; Dr Cnapple went on to say that ho became a director injbhe oompany. There was nothing in the imputation that he had made himself chairman for all time v so long as he held 'SOO shares. It was “purely a mistake on the,part of the solicitors who drew up the articles. Witness moved to have the provision struck out at one of the meetings; it was agreed to, but a consequential clause elsewhere was inadvertently retained. The directors of the oompany would bear him out in this statement. Continuing, witness said the company . was first divided up into thirty-firsts. A cortain partition or allotment was ar- ' ' ranged by which he (witness) got the frac- . ' tions of shares held by the other share- ‘ holders. He had never asked for them. ; - Considering that he had carried out the had to pledge his personal /V cheque when the tender was made, and : A that he would have absolutely lost that -"money had the purchase not been completed/ it was a very poor recompense to know that ho had unconsciously benefited / to' the extent of less than <£lo. He had v ~ nothing but the kindliest regards for Mr r/iPlimmer. It was true defendant was ; "'--.very fond of him. When witness was / v away at Makerua defendant had. sent up refreshments. Witness remembered defendant expressing a wish to transfer him some shares in the Manawatu Rail-way-Company. He wanted witness to qualify for a place on the directorate. The' shares were not transferred. The • reason why he had not sent in his account to defendant at shorter periods . was because, it was not customary for medical men to send accounts to their . patients: during ) the .currency of attendance. It was customary though, in a case like defendant’s, for the patient - , to say, might send me in your account.”,v Defendant would have taken

it as an offonce if he had been presented with an account. >

Mr Quick: Do you remember getting a cheque in February, 1902, for <£2oo from defendant ?—Yes. That was in addition to anything you have given credit for in the statement of claim?—Yes.

Did you intend to keep that <£2oo? I put it to the credit of Mr Plimmer’s accoxint. When witness received the cheque it was moi'e than was really dxxe by defendant at the time. At that time them was no indication his attendance on the patient would be discontinxxed. There would be a balance of something like <£2o to Mr Plimmer’s credit. So yoxx paid 3'oui’self iu advance. Now is it not a fact yoxx asked him for this rnonev? —I nex r er suggested any such thing'’. He handedme the cheque saying at the same time, “I will not give you any more for some time.” He did not advise yoxx that the cheqxxo was in the wax' of a loan?—He may have deemed it so. He gave it to me spontaneoxxsly. Did yoxx return the cheqxxe?—Witness said he l-eceived a letter from Mr J. A. Plimmer saying his father had been induced to pay his calls in the company amounting to something like. £6OO, and under the circximstances xvould be obliged if he “xvould return the <£2oo his father had lent.” Do you knoxv xvliv defendant did not pay his calls? —He xx r as a little cantankerous, when he found he coxxld not hax'e the estate divided as like. Is it not a fact it was because he found himself a large shareholder in a joint stock company in which he liad not the control he was rightly entitled to, considering the interests he held. He may have tlxoxxght . so. Witness, continuing, said ho had returned a cheqxxe for £2OO to defendant. He denied’that he had asked defendant for a loan of <£2oo. . Witness detailed the doses of moi’phia and atropine he had administered to defendant during his illness. The patient was on the xvay to recover when he (xvitness) xvas dismissed. He might have administered morphia to the patient by himself. He had no knoxvledge that on one occasion it nearly di’ove the patient mad. Witness did not. knoxv that atropine affected the eyesight. If it did it xvas not noticeable to either Dr Kendall or xvitness. If defendant was losing his eyesight he coxxld write letters when he was ill- , Mr Qxxick: Yoxx went to Collmgwood when you were attending, him?—Yes. Do you remember when? —Some time between March 22nd and 27th. . Did you visit Mr Plimmer during that time? —No; Dr McGavin xvas my locum tenens.

Did he visit the patient?—l believe so.

You charge here for days you xvere axvay in Collingxvood. Hoxv xvas the money gained?—l presume by the visit of my locum tenens.

Now, is it your conscientioxxs belief that this man who reqxiired administration of drxxgs was in a fit state to enter into a speculation involving <£30,000? —It all depends on the man. This man xvas. Witness, continuing, said the purchase was not a speculation to this day. They had stock xvorth £2OOO. and xvere receiving something like £2OOO per month in royalties.' Re-examined by Dr Findlay: Since Christmas time xxp to the date of his dismissal witness had been diminishing the doses of morphia to the patient. He coxxld have gone on to the end of his days xvithout the dose doing him any harm whatever. It was true that in the later years of one’s life morphia could be taken with advantage. As far as the cheque for £2OO xvas concerned, xvitness prodixced.a copy of a letter xvhich he had written to Mr J. A. Plimmer, saying he had decided to return the cheqxxe, though he had credited it as payment for medical attendance. “However,” the letter concluded, “as your father seems to be xxnder the impression that he gave me the cheque as a loan, I have decided to return it.” Witness was willing to restore the fractions of shares spoken of. Defendant had told witness that he was worth about £IOO,OOO. He had been told that if he did not reduce his account to £SO certain charges would be lodged against him. DR COLLINS’S EVIDENCE.

Dr William Edward Collins said he was called in to see. Mr Plimmer on October 15th or 16th, 1902. Witness xvas informed on arrival at defendant’s house that Dr Chappie refused to attend or could not attend. The defendant was suffering from gall stone and colic and acute pain. .Witness ordered hot applications for the abdomen and hypodermic injections of morphia. The dose xvas a quarter .of a grain. After witness’s fourth visit Dr Chappie resumed his attendances. The treatment adopted by Dr Chappie, under the circumstances was quite proper. In cases sxxch as defendant’s, it xvas necessary to give hypodermic injections of morphia. . As far as he knew the treatment was that recognised by medical physicians in all such cases. When the patient (afflicted as defendant was) was free from pain, there xvas no reason why he shoxild not be capable of transacting business. It was quite possible that the patient might be celebrating his birthday one day and in the evening be suffering intense pain. Witness had attended cases, extending .over five or six years in many instances. Morphia had to be used as soon as the pain increased. Morphia xvas not curative, ffixt palliative. If morphia had not been used in defendant’s case, plaintiff xvould have been told to call in somebody else. Dr Findlay: And there was nothing in Mr Chappie’s treatment inconsistent with that followed by yourself ?—Certainly not. Touching on the questions of fees witness said they xvere fixed by the Medical Association. He charged defendant one guinea for night and early morning visits and 10s 6d for day visits. Cross-examined by Mr Quick: Witness had attended Mr Plimmer once or txvice many years ago. He believed Dr France (since deceased) was Mr Plimmer’s medical man for many years. The deceased physician was particularly well versed in drugs. Witness was led to believe de-"' fendant was suffering from gall stones on

account of the pain. Thei’e was an intense attack of jaundice accompanying the complaint. Witness had no doubt defendant xvas suffering from an attack of gall stone colic at the time. He was xxnder tne impression he had infoi'med defendant’s family what he was sxxffering from. The injection of morphia in all such cases had to be administered xvith caution—in fact, medical men xvere very chaiy about rising it. Mr Quick: Is it possible that a person xx'ho had been suffering from gall stones txventy-four hoxirs previously xvould be making a speech at the end of that time? —Well, cases differ so xvidely— Yes, but xvliere the patient xvas an old man, ninety years of age?—Well. Mr Plimmer is sxxch a remarkable man Yes, that is so; but xvould the administration of morphia be a good tonic for a man who was going oxxt to attend a festive function or gathering of the clans so to speak?—Witness replied that there xvere cases where a patient in the habit of getting morphia could do nothing until a dose was administered.

Would you permit a patient xvho xvas suffering from gall stones to get up and attend xvhat xvas practically a public meeting?— I xx'ould probably not. You have heard of the continual administration of morphia and atropine? —Yes.

Yoxi tell xxs it is only usual to so administer in cases of paroxysms or acute pain, as in case of cancer?—Yes. Do yoxx knoxv of a case xvliere a middleaged man had morphia administered to him day after day and night after night ? —'lf the gall stone pain continued day after day, as it sometimes does, it xvould be necessary to give it continually. What xvould be the result in that case; xvould it be easing the xvay to death?— Witness answered in the affirmative. It xx'ould mean death or an operation to save life. He further stated that xvliere injections had been used freqixently or continuously for gall-stone colic it xvould be very difficult to discontinue the . treatment. When xvitness treated Mr Plimmer he “sounded” him.

Assuming, now, there was no violent recovery such as xve heard mentioned, and if the subsequent treatment, almost xx'holly a dietetic one, xvas immediately productive of a change, would that imply that tho former diagnosis of the case had been defective ?—I xvould not like to say. A man could be sloxvly recovering after he passed a gall stone. Mr Plimmer’s xvorst period xvas between June and July, 1902. Would you imagine that he xvas so seriously ill that he required night and day visits during the xx'holo of that.time ? —They may not have been absolutely necessary unless the patient demanded them. Some patients like a great deal of attention. I find the patient’s medical advisor xvent axvay on more than one occasion during his illness. Do yoxx think it was advisable to go ax\ r ay and leave Mr Plimmer in the hands of a yoxxhg lady xvho xvas not a qualified nurse? Dr Findlay protested. He appealed to his Worship to say this xx r as not so. His Worship said he certainly xxnderstood from the evidence that the case' xvas left in the hands of plaintiff’s loexxm tenens. Mr Plimmer, he thought, Preferred the lady to come in.

Mr Qxxick: Well, xve xvill say the case xx'as taken charge of by this yoxing lady. Do you think it is proper to permit the constant administration of drugs such as morphia by ajj unqualified person? —I think morphia ought to be given by a doctor or a nurse under medical instructions. He informed the Coxxrt that on one occasion he had allowed the daughter of a house to administer morphia. Mr Qxxick: That xvoxild be xxnder peculiar circumstances.—The medical man should know the person administering the drug xvas competent. Do you think it xvas proper in Mr Plimmer’s case not to have called in another medical man to consxilt? —That is a matter entirely for the patient and his medical advisei*.

Have yoxx ever known a case of chronic gall stones last for txx r o yeai’s?—Yes. Did the patient recover ?—Yes. Witness said it xvas sometimes necessary to give morphia several times during the day. He had instructed tho daughter of a patient hoxv to administer the drxxg. He never used morphia continuously in any case he had attended exicept in that case. Re-examined by Dr Findlay: Witness nex'er had a case of gall stones in a man of ninety yeai's. In Mr Plimmer’s case an operation woxxld have been xxndertaken with the greatest hesitation. Because an operation had not followed this continuous use of morphia it did not infer bad practice. The gall stone might pass after a time. A recovery xvas not alxvays sudden. If the gall stone passed the pain became alleviated, the jaundice xvould sloxvly disappear, and the necessity for morphia would not be present. Witness had no reason whatever to doubt that the defendant had gall stones. There xvere cases xx'here morphia was taken for years by people xvitlioxit doing them very serious injury. He knexv of cases, unfortunately, where as much as eight grains per day had been taken. Dr Findlay: Where a xvoman had ten years in a dispensary, and the patient she is attending is specially desirous that she should administer it, xx'ould you see anything professionally improper in allowing her to do so?—lf the patient was satisfied, and the doctor xvas satisfied, and he had seen it done on more than one occasion, and done properly, I think it would be sufficient. Yoxx alloxved a xvoman to administer it in one of your oxvn cases?—Yes. Mr Quick: And you went occasionally to supervise the administration? —Yes. MR QUICK’S ADDRESS.

Mr Quick opened the case for the defence at considerable length. He said the features of the case xvere very interesting and very peculiar. He ventured to say that if the bill of attendance xvas put in a shop xvindoxv passers xvould be amazed to think any medical man could attend a patient for txvo years and charge at the rate Dr Chappie had done. Tnough Dr Chappie thought it necessary to visit his patient three and four times per day, he xvas exercising*Mr Plimmer’s brains and nervous system in connection with a big land speculation. He asked xvas it reasonable to think that Mr Plimmer would pay

£250 for medical attendance and then quietly submit to being billed for the amount stated in the claim? Mr Plimmer xvas not able to conduct business on the lines alleged by Dr Chappie. If he xvas capable, it xx r as plain he diu not require the attendance of Dr Chappie three times per day. Taken together the .txvo sxibmissions of plaintiff xvere prepo&tei'oxxs. Defendant, althoxxgh a man of great age, xvas originally perfect. lie indulged a good appetite and consequently sxxtfered occasional attacks of dyspepsia, amounting almost to colic, a malady for xvhich he had been treated by the late Dr France many years ago. It xvas noticeable that the charges in the bill rose by leaps and bounds, and it xvas significant that they did so at the time the Makerua speculation xvas being negotiated. In consequence ho became very irritable and almost expelled his family from his house, so great xvas the effect on his mind. The fact or otherwise that defendant had made a profit out of the transaction did not affeot the counter-claim. Mr Plimmer did not want anything from Dr Chappie. He (coxmsel) wished to knoxv why defendant had been allegedly exploited by plaintiff to the extent lie had been xxp to the present. Defendants were obliged to put in the counter-claim in order to bring out certain evidence. So far as the fees charged xvere concerned, he opined no medical man xx'ould adopt the maximum professional standard in dealing xvith long standing cases or family attendances. Counsel xvould endeavour to show tho medicine administered produced irritability, and that defendant was sloxvly losing liis eyesight. When Dr Gibb was called in to see defendant, he uiagnosed the case and prescribed treatment similar to that ordered by Dr France many years before. Defendant’s sons xx'ould come forxvard and deny that Dr Chappie’s opinions or Licensing or other matters had anything whatever to do xvith the case. Dr Chappie xvished to pose as a mai'tyr—that he had sacrificed a good patient and. three guineas per day for the sake of prohibition! Dr Anson, xvho had since left Wellington, agreed xvith Di< Gibbs’s diagnoses of the case and his treatment. Mr Plimmer had now practically recovered. The land speculation brought on sickness and the latter administration of morphia. Defendant xx r as redxxced to such a state, he alleged, that he xvas hardly able to do without the drug either day or nieht. He xvas a complete wreck when he was taken over by Dr Gibbs. DR GIBBS CALLED.

Dr Harry Edward Gibbs said he was called to attend Mr Plimmer on March 25th, 1903. The patient xvas very excited and very irritable. He xvas suffering from disturbance of x'ision, had difficulty in sxvalloxving, his pxilse xvas very irregular, and the heart sounds were weak. Miss Chappie called at the hoxxse in the ex r ening and said she xvas giving the patient injections of atropine txvice per day. She said she xvas giving a third of a grain at a time. Mr Qxxick-.She mxxst have made a mistake.—l presume so. Continuing, xvitness said he considered the circumstances xvere sufficiently serious to warrant a second opinion, and called in Dr Anson. They examined the patient, and the result of the consultation xvas the treatment subsequently resorted to. Witness was afraid of a very speedy end. He did not diagnose the existence of gall stones, but liad since reason to suspect their existence oxving to the presence of jaundice. Mr Plimmer had not suffered from gall stones during the time xvitness xvas attending him. Amongst other thing witness prescribed doses of quinine, lOgra of bromide potassium and sgrs of chloral hydrate. The patient made progress under this treatment. From March 25th to April 19th, xvitness had made two x'isits per day. After that one visit was made, and a little later, one visit every second day, and so on, until he xvas noxy visiting scarcely once per xveek. Mr Quick: To what did you attribute the perilous state you found him in?— * With the evidence I had before me, to the atropine. Atropine and morphia caused jx craving for those drugs after continuous administration. He did not think drags such as atropine and morphia should be left to the care of au unqualified person. He repeated that the attacks Mr Plimmer suffered from - were not caused by gall stones, bxxt indigestion and consequent* colic. Witness did not think defendant was in a physical position to give attention to financial matters at the time of his illness. Mental anxiety xvould aggravate any symptoms an aged person was liable to, and morphia xvould, of necessity, have to be resorted to. Witness’s treatment was mostly dietetic. , Mr Plimmer’s sight had improved since witness was called to attend him. Continxxoxxs doeses of atropine affected the eye-sight. Witness continued his- attendance on Mr Plimmer in response to a note signed by the patient's three sons. Subsequently xx'ltness met Dr Chappie at defendant’s hoxxse on a' Saturday evening. Witness xvas sitting at the patient’s bed-side and plaintiff entered the room xvith a letter xvhich he told Mr Plimmer he had receix*ed from his (Mr Plimmer’s) sons. Mr Plimmer’s signature xvas not attached to the letter, and plaintiff asked defendant the reason, saying, “You generally sign your oxvn documents; xvhy don’t you sign this?" Defendant did not ansxver, and plaintiff aaid “Is this sent xvith your approval?" Defendant replied, “Yes.” Dr Chappie then asked, “Do I xxnderstand yoxx do not xvish me to attend you any longer?” and defendant again replied “Yes.” Plaintiff then shook hands xvith defendant and walked oxxt of the room. Cross examined by Dr Findlay: Witness attributed the change in Mr Plimmer’s condition to his (xvitness’s) treatment. Ho could not say lie had had a protracted case of gall stones to deal xvith. Assuming that a person was suffering from gall stones, accompanied by severe pain, ho would prescribe doses of atropine and@ morphia administered hypedermically. If Dr Chappie xvas telling the truth as to the symptoms of the patient witneisa still quarrelled with his treatment. Ho considered Dr Chappie had conti.nxxed the administration of morphia and atrppino toe long. Witness also differed - xvith Dr Collins. A dose morphia and 1-400 of a grain of atropine xvould be injurious to a patient in Mr Plimmer’s position. He might die within a- year - v-': : v-

Dr Findlay: Do yon believe Mr Plimxnetr was affected with gall stones two or three months before you attended him ? I saw no symptoms of it. Them you are not in a position to contradict Dr Chappie?—No. You don’t question Dr Collins’s statement that he found the patient suffering from gall stones in 1900?—Not the statement; but I do the fact. Why ?—Because my expedience since leads me to believe that it may nave been an aggravated form of the disease he has since suffered from. There is the additional fact that Dr Collins only attended the ease for one half-day. Continuing his evidence, witness said he would still maintain that defendant was suffering from atropine poisoning. Do you think the treatment Dr Chappie resorted to rightly exposed him to any action for malpractice?—Portions of it, yes; * And would rightly expose Dr Collins to an action for malpractice?—Yes. Proceeding, witness said that he thought the patient was capable of determining the question of changing his physician. He was not capable of deciding the adviisableness or otherwise of distributing his estate to his sens Mr Quick: That is not a fact. Dr Findlay r It is as a matter of evidence, but I. will put the question hypothetically. - Witness again answered in the negative. He could not say if defendant was fit to enter into the Makerua swamp transaction when he did. In allowing a young lady to administer morphia to a patient he did not think Dr Collins was guilty of negligence as a high-class medical man.. Dr Findlay: Yet you still say Dr Chappie was guilty of negligence in similarly acting P—Yes. It was not administered under supervision. And unless the treatment was changed the patient would have died?—That is my qpihion. Witness was re-examined at length by Counsel for the defence. At 5 p.m. further hearing of the case was adjourned until H a.m. next day. THIRD DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. DOCTORS DIFFER. DR CAHILL CABLED. Proceedings opened on Thursday morning with the evidence of Dr Cahill. Witness sai&\ he had examined Mr Plimmer on the 14th and ISth April of this year, at Dr Gibbs’s request. Oh the first occasion he was suffering from a gastric attack, and on the other occasion he was quite well. There were no traces of gall stones. Witness described the effect of atropine poisoning in terms similar to Dr Gibbs’s the day before. Witness was not in the habit of administering morphia after the paroxysms had ceased. Continuous administration of atropine and morphia produced a craving for these drugs. Contintious administration was usually resorted to with a view to easing the path to death. In a case like Mi* Plimmer’s witness would have a consultation preparatory to deciding on an operation before entertaining the continuous use of Jrugs. He had two cases at the present time where a consultation had taken place. The effect of an operation on a man of ninety years would entirely depend on the condition of the patient.

The administration of atropine might be dangerous to the eyesight. It was not difficult to teach an unqualified person , how to carry out hypodermic injection of morphia under a physician and proper supervision; There should be daily supervision. Witness could not say how far defendant was able to transact Irasiness at the time plaintiff ,was attending him. He had no knowledge 'of the patient’s condition at the time, but would say he must have been seriously ill judging by the account. Witness knew the late Dr France. It was generally agreed that the deceased gentleman had a better knowledge of drugs. than any other man in .the profession in Wellington. Jaundice did not necessarily indicate gall stones. It might be caused by bowel troubles. As ft rule, the symptoms were not specially painful, but it occasionally happened that foreign matter might get into the gall-tube, and set up symptoms similar to gall stones. . Cross-examined by Dr Findlay: When called in to see Mr Plimmer on the 24th April mention was made of legal proceedings by Dr Gibbs. So far asi he remembered, Dr Gibbs rang him up, and asked that he might see the patient with him. He beleved the suggestion that lie should be a witness in the case was made some days subsequently. If dilation of pupils and dryness of mouth were absent in a patient, witness would say the case was not one of atropine poisoning, though he did not look upon dryness of the mouth as an absolutely toxic symptom. It had to be remembered that dryness of the mouth was only one symptom. Dr Findlay: Then do you wish to modify your view about this symptom?—Yes, it is not an absolutely essential symptom. Then these symptoms may also be consistent with other troubles?—Yes. Continuing, witness' said he would be very sorry to give l-20th of a grain of atropine to a patient. The Parlc-Davis tablet, administered hypodermically to ■ ■ ,TMV Plimmer contained one-third .of a •; grain of morphia and l-200th of a grain of atropine. Notwithstanding this, at the end of a week’s treatment he would -‘•ay he would expect to find -atropine, . father than morphia, poisoning. Toler:fttion of morphia wag much more easily . - established than that of atropine.. Even if the text-book said that I-20th of ft grain of atropine was a safe dose, witA ness would not administer that quantity. “After examining the text-book, he mentioned that it Was not stated whether . • it was to . be ; administered hypodermically or by the mouth. To give the patient in-the case before the Court one•ixth of a grain of morphia and l-400th of. a grain of atropine would not be administering a large dose. Witness would r iiot agree to the advisableness of the continuous use of morphia He might give it v night after higlit for a time if he had not particularly sound grounds for ot> abating. Witness would

not trust to sedatives of atropine and mcrphia where there was a chance of the gall stone passing. Dr Findlay: Supposing you found a person suffering from atropine poisoning what drug would you apply as an antidote?—You might apply morphia itself. Would you give bromide potassium and chloral hydrate?—Not at the same time. What would be the effect of these drugs? If they were not administered in small doses would they not be injurious? —Yes, but it would depend entirely on the case. Proceeding, witness said the fact that a lady, who had ten years experience in a dispensary, was allowed to administer morphia did not, in his opinion, rightly expose the plaintiff to an action for malpractice. To Mr Quick: Witness would have it so administered under daily supervision. Age would be no bar to operating if the patient wag organically sound. DR MARTIN’S EVIDENCE. Dr Albert Martin was the next witness called. He said he had, at Dr Gibbs’s request, recently examined Mr Plimmer. The examination was made with a view to these proceedings. Witness discovered no signs of gall stones. Acute spasmodic pain and vomiting might be caused by disarrangement of the stomach or congestion of the lungs. Excepting in cases where patients would not submit to be operated upon, he would not continuously resort to the administration of morphia and atropine. There were the dual dangers of inculcating a desire for the drugs; and in the case of atropine there was a danger to the eyes. Touching on the question of administration of drugs by unqualified persons, he said it was his custom to give them in an exceptionally careful manner. In witness’s opinion, Mr Plimmer in hia present condition, was a fit subject for an operation for gall stones. Mr Quick: Now would you have attended Mr Plimmer so long as we are told Dr Chappie has done without seeking another opinion ?—I always court consultations. And you think it would have been tbe right thing to have sought consultation in Mr Plimmer’s case ?—lt is always better to halve the responsibility. Continuing, witness said if a patient was suffering from colic, he would not continue administration of atropine and morphia. Cross-examined by Dr Findlay: Atropine was to counteract any evil effects the' morphia might have. After a patient suffering from gall stones had become well there would be nothing in his condition to show that ho had been troubled with that complaint. Where it was certain that gall stones had passed, there would not be a recurrence of the complaint in as short a period as two years. At all events such a thing would certainly be unusual. Without being guilty of malpractice one doctor might easily prescribe the administration of more morphia or atropine than another. The objection to an unqualified person administering morphia would be chiefly the want of knowledge of the condition of the patient. Assuming that the person administering it was experiencedin its use and that the doctor had satisfied him-

self of the necessity of it, there would - ; be no objection to the course. Witness did not see that there was anything wrong with the administration of one-sixth of a grain of morphia and l-400th of a grain of atropine, but it would require to be wa/fccliGcu Mr Quick: Do you think a bill of this sort (holding up the claim), and extending over two years from day to day would infer that the patient was suffering from-an attack of gall stones?—-He did not think that it would imply that • the patient was suffering from a complaint. of a paroxysmal nature. EVIDENCE BY AN OCULIST. Dr H. Martindale Kendall said he had been requested by Dr Chappie to examine Mr Plimmer. Plaintiff was not present during his (witness’s) examination of the patient. Dr Chappie showed; him into the room. Perhaps this would not be called a “consultation” in the strict interpretation of the term. He found the pupils in a semi-dilated condition. In answer to questions, he ascertained no “drops” had been put into the eyes. Atropine administered hypodermically would produce the symptoms he described. He would attribute the dilation to the use of this drug. Dr Chappie had not told him that he had been administering atropine. Witness did not treat the case further than prescribing glasses. He had been paid by Miss Wilson for the visit. Witness did not charge plaintiff. Cross-examined by Dr Fiqdlay: Continuous confinement in a dark room would cause dilation of the eye. The room in which the patient was lying seemed to be light enough when the blind was drawn. Had he not been paid he would have charged Dr Chappie for the visit. The very smallest dose of atropine would cause dilation of the pupil. Witness did not think the dilation he saw would result in permanent injury to vision. To Mr Quick: The continuous use of atropine, where a patient had passed the ago of thirty-five years, would constitute a danger which might result in affecting the sight. A LADY WITNESS. ; On resuming Emily Kate Wilson, Jiouse- | keeper to Mr Plimmer, was called by Mr Quick. Witness said she had been housekeeper to defendant for nearly twentyeight years and still attended to the domestic side of the establishment she had collected rents and paid bills. In 1898 and until he died Dr France was Mr Plimmer’s medical adviser. Six or seven years ago Mr Plimmer had had an acute attack of illness —fainting, fits, sickness and pains in the left side. He suffered similarly, but not so severely, for a considerable time. Dr France treated him for indigestion. Mr Plimmer was almost always veiy well then# and the doctor’s bill would probably not be more than five guinea® a yean. When Dr France died Dr Chappie was called in to attend Mr Plimmer, who was suffering from jaundice. When the Makecrua swamp was first spoken of by Mr Plimmer he was weak and ill. There wa® no difference as far a® she could see in the illness at that time as compared with other attacks ne had had during his life- When* r i? I pie first treated the patient with an in- *

jection, which she thought was morphia, Mr Plimmer’ was rendered .almost insane and assistance - had to be obtained. Dr Chappie- said lie would not use tiie injection again. Atropine, she thought, was afterwards used. IV hen the atropine was injected Mr Plimmer was very happy for the time, but afterwards* when* the effect wore off, lie-was very irritable. Dr France had never used injections on Mr Plimmer, and the attacks of illness, she considered, were no different than those Mr Plimmer suffered from when Dr France was treating him. tihe was often in the sick man’s room during visits of Dr Chappie. A good deal of conversation was indulged in between the doctor and the patient regarding, the-ivta-kerua swamp. Mr Plimmer had! the swamp on the hrain —he nun ted to build a new Venice- in tire swamp—to put up cathedrals, churches, schools and other buildings. He wanted to call one of the proposed streets “Chappie street,” but the doctor objected. He grew very feeble in intellect and his irritability increased. She remembered some law papers being brought to the old man’s bedroom to be signed. One of the documents was brought by young Mr Stafford and some other gentlemen. Mr Plimmer was* quite childish about that time. The first document was brought up to his bedrooin m the dusk, and the old man was lifted out of bed to sign it. He afterwards told witness that he did not kitew what was in the document —did- not know what he had signed. Witness remembered Dr Collins visiting Mr Plimmer twice. She herself had called in Dr Collins because Dr Chappie was not at home when he was wanted. Injection was constantly going on. The patient liked it. He said it relieved him. Asked what, led up to the dismissal of Dr Chappie;-witness said that after Miss Chappie came the patient seemed to tire of the doctor, and to prefer his sister. Miss Chappie, however, did not like the way the old man spoke about her brother and ceased her visits. Something about a cheque for .£2OO had annoyed the patient. Dr Chappie’s attitude on the subject of prohibition had nothing to do with his dismissal, and she did not think that Dr Chappie had anything to do with the disagreement between the f ather and sons. Mi’ Plimmer was perfectly fascinated with the doctor, and only regretted that he was not his. son. While Dr Chappie was absent from Wellington she grew afraid of the mental and bodily condition of Mr Plimmer and called in Dr Gibbs. Only one injection was made by the latter, and it was done with the object of counteracting the effects or the atropine. The cross-examination of Miss Wilson was interrupted at this stage m order to take Dr Kendall’s evidence (printed above) On resuming, in answer to questions by Dr Findlay, she said Dr Chappie had always shown’ the utmost care and solicitude for his patient—he was too attentive. Neither witness nor Mr Plimmer had made any objection to the frequent visits of the doctor until a note arrived from the patient’s sons. The sons were opposed to the swamp proposals. They thought their father was too old to dabble in the investment. In

xeialy to a question as to the (state of Mr { Pfimmer’.s health when he conveyed a portion of his property to his sons in 1902, witness said as he had given the , property tp the proper people he was in a fit state of health. Had he given it *to strangers it would have been a .proof ; of his unfitness. Mr Plm-mer had al- » ways declared that a good,, unseen influence had ,guided his life, .and during the time of the .swamp negotiations said that voice" spoke to him. She thought ; -Mr Plinamer did not like Dr Chappie . standing for the Licensing Committee. ' Hid not flcnow that the sons were worry- s L»g the defendant to convey property to ! them, and had never heard that tney intervened to prevent him giving money away for jnihlic purposes. Did not know, •either, that the sons had endeavoured to ■ induce Dr Chappie to use his influence , with the'father to get him to make over ■ property to them. THE EIGHT TO CALL FRESH EYTDENCE. -

Dr Findlay, at this .stage, said he wished to make .application to recall certain witnesses in respect to the counter-claim. The point to .be relied .on seemed to be atropine poisoning, .and as this aspect ; of the case was not before tne Court tv hen Dr : CofKns and Da- .'Chappie were in me ibex, he wished to a>ecaM_.:uu.©9e witnesses. Lt whig .absolutely necessary .that ,ae should do to. . Mi- Quick -objected to -the application. He saill the question -of atropine .-was in evidence throughout. If Dr Findlay had his .request .granted, he (eoomseii) would nlfi© have the right to call refottuciag evidence, and the case would go on indefinitely,. Where,, he asked was the matter to end? He objected to opening u-p new matter at this time of the day and . submitted the application should not be acceded, to. . , , J , . JTis Worship; replied that it . had to be remembered that the counter-claim constituted what was really.a separate action. From the evidence lie clid not think Dr Chappie-knew W'hat the ha<l ho meet; and so fax as.he (theMagistrate).was concerned he otmld not gainer from 'he crosses aoniaation of plaintiff- the exact nature •of the charge mad© -by the virtual comptaiasint in the ease. Under the .circumstances the application would .be granted. •At 4.4? Pita. Fhe 'Court .adjourned until 11 a.in,-next day.

FWSW3. DAT'S FROCEEDINGS. CONCLUSION OF THE HEADING OF ■ ' THE CASE JUDGMENT RESERVED. ME. CHARLES BUMMER CALLED. -'Charles Blimmer, .sen of .defendant, waa the first witness called on FridayHo gaiid he was well acquainted with his father’s ways and state of health. He rsHiemhered the -attacks of illness defendant had when Dr France was attending him, latter when _Dr Chappie ■ was •,attending him, .and, finally ,/in Dr Cibbs’s time. So -far as he coiila see, the .-.atiSaaks ware of a (similar 1 nature throughout. Sis father was well versed in Bi/bheal matters. Witness had never • beard him speak of anything approaching spiritualism, until he reached the age of rilnety-one years. At that time he was object to an hallucination. In 1892 witnes- and Ms brother John pur chased two hotels, a property in Manners street and a property in Boulcott street, from.their father. The purchase price amounted to> about £BO,OOO. Barrett’s Hotel was amongst the property. The building was very old, and had since been re-erected at a cost of about £12,©09. jHe did not know any particular reason, why his father got rid of the .property. He simply hoard that his father expressed >a wish that his sous -should buy from him. It was an untruth to say that he had stated tie would . not visit his father if Dr Chappie was retained ,as his medical attendant. Regarding the letter of dis- . missal, he said he had at first refused to., sign it. but was persuaded by his wife to do .so. Defendant’s family had . ralways retained liis confidence. A ©hang© was motieeable. in ,his father’s behaviour from the time Dr Chappie was employed. "Mr -Quick: Did; you <ever my a word to your brother. about Dr Ohapple being, on the 'Licensing -Berneh?—-Witness: T never mentioned a word. Do you-know what made your father dismiss Dr Chappie ?—I/suppose he arranged that.Dr -Gibbs should be his attendant, add did not want two medical men. . .y (fcogs-exanTined -by Dr Findlay: So far as he knew vhis father’s hallucination developed iin 1992. He could not say ex-actly-when. It continued throughout the year. Witness’s father was not fit to transact .any business at that time. The purchase of property by the sons was made in August .in 1902. Dr -FindlayDo you mean to,say you took, advantage of him ?—No.; no ad- ' vantage. " \ , Do 'yon think .he was quite fit to determine what he .should get for the property? —I don’t know that Dr Chappie did not determine the matter for him. ■lt was a business transaction ?—Yes. You ; gave him full value ?—Vary , -nearly. # '' There was a certain element of affeo- ' in the matter ?—There, was am element'of justice. h / " Was the, element of justice in the * cheapness of the propei-ty? —It was property he would have given to us -under Jius twafl. / ri r '/.

Yon paid s£3Q,OOO for property that TCould Save been -given to you under SRftuld- jhaye had to -pay ;£25;000.. -- , [What for?—To pay off the (mortgage's*

Proceeding, witness said the hotels concerned in the transaction were Barrett’s and the Albert. Dr Findlay : And do you think yourself justified in taking property from .man incapable of transacting business? —-In this case, yes. Was any price mentioned? —No. Was the price fixed? —Yes, and we paid it. Jjf the price had been 'fixed at £35,900, would you have paid it?—No. Then Dr Chappie was evidently acting in your father’s interests ?—No doubt he was. He would take care you would not get the priperty too cheap?—Yes; very likely. Are you aware your brother, J. A. Plimmer, wrote to Dr Chappie asking him to use his influence with your father in the direction of getting him to hand over the property to you and your brother ?—No. Did your brother ever tell you he had asked Dr Chappie to get defendant to hand over the property to you?—No. Did your brother ever say anything about Dr Chappie to you ?—He always thought Dr Chappie had too much influence with my father. And, on your oath, you say you don’t know of such a letter ever having been written? —I don’t know. Had you any conversation with your brother respecting the £30,000? —Yes, •certainly ; we made arrangements to pay the money. Were any others present, excepting yourself and your brother, when you discussed this matter, or the matter of the fairness of the price ?—No.

Were you told who fixed the price?— No.

Five thousand pounds cash, the witness went on to say, passed to his father over the transaction; that was all that was required; the rest remained on mortgage. The property was worth perhaps forty or fifty thousand pounds. When the deeds were signed the old man, lie -considered, was not in a fit state to do business. Witness considered it fair for members of the family to transact business with the old man while he was in that state, but considered it would be unfair for strangers to do business with him. In regard to licensing matters, witness said he had never spoken to his father about Dr Chappie’s candidature to the Licensing Bench. Not wishing to interfere with his father’s business, he refused at first to sign the letter concerning the dismissal of the doctor.

To Mr Quick: The letter was eigued by 'three brothers. One of the brothers —lsaac —was not interested directly op indirectly in any hotels. MR J. A. PLIMMER’S EVIDENCE. John Alfred Plimmer, son of defendant, was next called, and, examined by Mr Quick, said that for twenty-five years, and up to the past two years, he was his father’s sole confidant in business matters. Was during that time with the old man almost every day, and knew perfectly his mental and physical health. Dr France had always said that the old man’s organs were perfect, and the only trouble witness rememhefred his Father had was jaundice and indigestion. In later years there had been some complaint of pain, hut witness thought' they wore more the result of imagination than reality. His father had frequently expressed gratitude for relief from pain given by Dr Ohapple , ’s treatment. While the latter was treating him, the old man -was for a long time not in good mental health. At intervals he was stupid and! not fit to carry out financial transactions. Witness was a shareholder in the Makerua swamp. At the time the swamp purchase was mooted bi's father was ;in a peculiar position with his hotel property, owing to the agitation afoot at the time to close the hotels in the city. His father wanted to pledge, as security for- the Makerua purchase, all his property, in order to raise an overdraft -of £31,000. An effort was made to raise money from existing mortgagors, and failed—he could get no money from one or another. Referring to a letter which he had written to Dr Chappie, witness said he had pointed , out the possibility of his father being required :by -the Licensing Committee to rebuild Barrett’s Hotel in brick, and that if the ■securities for -the swamp purchase were lodged, the old man would be quite unable to raise a shilling for rebuilding purposes. That was witness’s only reason for asking Dr Chappie to influence the old man not to invest in the Makerua swamp. Witness had himself accompanied his father to the A.M.P. Society to try and -raise money, but they failed. One Sunday evening Miss Chappie came to witness’s house and asked him to see her brother on an urgent -matter. Witness said he dould not go to Dr Chappie, but would see the doctor if hie dame to witness. At the meeting, Dr Ohapple made a proposal that certain property (Barrett's Hotel, the Albert Hotel, properties in Manners street and Boulcott street) should be transferred from Mr Plimmer, senr., to witness and his brother Charles, on condition that all mortgages should he taken over with the properties, in addition to taking over mortgages-on some other property, and pay their father £SOOO cash. After consideration and consultation, the offer was accepted. The reason given by Dr Chappie for the offer was that the old bran was worried abou his affairs, and wished to be relieved* There was the

further condition attached to the proposal that witness and his brother should have no further interest in their father’s estate. The negotiations were carried out by Dr Chappie and witness’s father. Nineteen months had elapsed since witness and his brother had taken over the properties, and the whole profit up till to-day was £389. Touching the purchase of the property, witness said he did not wish it to be understood he did not know he was buying a good property. The fact that he had been able to make arrangements for rebuilding would go to make the purchase a profitable one in time 1 . . Mr Quick: What of the security that was lodged in the ease. of the Makerua transaction ?—Witness: It. remained with the bank until fresh arrangements were made with the Manawatu Company to get mortgages outside. My father’s security was then red eased. What was the value of this-security ? —Between £20,000 and £25,000. He added that one security was still held. This was for financing the Makerua swamp' ? —Yes. Dr Chappie says he lodged security ? Yes, I believe that is a fact. He says he was also concerned to the extent that he lodged a cheque for £IOOO cash —what do you know of that? —He did deposit a cheque for £IOOO. I know this on account of being a director of the Manawatu Railway Company. The cheque accompanied an offer of £2 10s per acre for the land. That wais when he tendered?—No, ;t ‘was not a tender; merely an offer. There was no risk of losing the money then ?—No. I suppose he could have raised his offer another 10s per acre if he chose?—Yes. Counsel commented on the fact that Dr Chappie had taken unto himself the credit for liavingf obtained! the property at £2 10s per acre. Witness interjected that the cheque never went near a bank. Mr Quick: So there was really nothing iin the matter?—Witness: No risk,; if there wais I don’t think Dr Cha-pple would have taken it—someone else would have been obliged to. That is your opinion ?—Yes. And you' have good reasons for that opinion ?—AMs. Do you remember an interview with your father when the latter endeavoured to get you to sign a paper regarding the transfer of some railway shares? — Yes; one day I called at the house, and met him in the garden. He was simply <l fuming,” and asked where Dr Chappie was when he knew who I was. I said I did not know Dr Chappie’s movements, and asked what he wanted. He

Dr Findlay objected to what lie termed these “ cock-anct-bull stories.” He said his friend knew' the rules of the Court —that second ary ♦evidence could not be admitted.

Mr Quick: He asked you to do. something ?—Witness: Y es. You were asked to sign a document? —Yes.

What was it? —A document transferring 500 Manawatu railway shares to Dx Chappie. Dr Findlay again objected to the admission of this evidence unless the document wiais to be produced. Witness (proceeding): I asked Dr Ohapple the reason of the transfer, and he told me —as my father had often done beforer—'that my father wanted him to be elected to the directorate of the Manawatu Railway Company to attend to my father’s business there, and to enable him (Dr Chappie) to travel free on the railway when he visited Makerua. You refused toi sign the document?— I refused to sign. There were none of your shares to sign avay ? —Well, it wias only a question of attaching a signature. Did you suggest to your father that this case should be defended ?—Never. Had you anything to clo with the case? —Nothing whatever. Had you ever any communication with your father regarding Dr Cha^le? — No, I never discussed Dr Chappie with him. You never made any threats about not entering your father’s door if he did not dismiss his medical attendant?— Certainly not; -no such thing ever entered jny mind!. Continuing, he .said that so far as h«s alleged letter regarding the influence of Dr Ohapple was concerned, he could state he had communicated with x Antiff asking hrin to prevent liis father indulging further than £SOOO in the speculation —this on account of the ; burdens he already had. to bear. The Alakerua purchase was still a matter of speculation. Anv profit obtained would depend largely on the pricemfflax. The land sold had realised about £40,000, of which about £BOOO had been paid m cash. The flax royalties ranged from about £4OO to £6OO per month. If the price of flax was to go down now to» what it was before the Spanish-American war there would be nothing in the flax industry. He did! not consider the land from an agricultural poant of view was a very profitable speculation. Mr Quick: So your father was induced to enter unto speculation by Dr Ohapple Dr Findlay: I object. Mr Quick: Well, we’ll say indluioedi—— Dir Findlay: Again I object.

Mr Quick: Well, we will say he entered into a speculation with Dr Chappie when he was ninety-one years of age? Witness: Yes. Proceeding, he said the merging of the company into a joint stock company was done wholly without his consent. His father had great ideas about outting up the property. He wanted to have his share in land and to build cathedrals and to lay out pleasure grounds. Defendant also wanted to make over his share of the property to Iris sons, Henry, Charles and witness. The anxietv eventually become so great that he did actually transfer to the brothers mentioned. At that time defendant’s condition was approaching senility—he thought so because of the absurd proposals he was frequently in the habit of making. At times he did not appear to be in possession of his full senses. He w'ould dose off to sleep in the middle of a conversation. The condition described extended over twelve months before 1903. He had nothing whatever to do with the dismissal of Dr Ohapple as his father’s medical attendant. Witness considered himself bound to write the letter though. He had consulted his elder brother, but did hot know if he had liis younger brother. Mr Quick: What lias been your father’s state of health since Dr-Gibbs was called in?—'Witness: On the whole, I think, very much better. Physically and mentally?—Yes. Does he take more interest in his family?—ln a way—he never took an intense interest in it. Still there is no asperity?—None that I am aware of. Now, regarding the division of shares and the fractions Dr holds —what amount did your father by that arrangement?—At the price Dr Ohapple himself has instructed his broker to sell, it would mean about £45. Further examined, he said the reason his father had neglected to pay his calls in the Makerua Company was because he had no knowledge of the concern being turned into a joint stock company. He also admitted that lie had written, a letter to Dr Chappie asking him to return the £2OO which his father said he had lent to him. CROSS-EXAMINATION.

On resuming after lunch, Mr J. A', Plimmer, cross-examined by Dr Findlay, said his father had always taken an active interest in the Manawatu Railway Company and the lands belonging to it. Also, he had always taken a live interest in the Makerua swamp, and, before Dr Chappie came on the scene, thought that if it could he properly drained, it would be very valuable to its owners. He (Mr Plimmer, senr.) had, however, never been on the swamp, and no man could understand that swamp properly unless he had traversed it. It was, however, no new' thing to his father to learn that the swamp would be a profitable investment at the time the laso pro* posal was made. The old man held about 4000 shares in the Manawatu Rail way Company, and witness held 500 shares. His father was a director until three years ago, and witness* became a director a month or two after his father’s retirement. Mr John Ivirkcaldie was also a director. The offer of £2 10s an acre made for the Makerua swamp in 1902 by Dr Ohapple was accepted. Knew that his father had an idea of offering £3 an acre for the swamp rather than run the risk of being refused. Witness considered £3 an acre would have been an excessive price. His father’s mind was at times still as clear as ever it was, and he was a man of great resolution of will —at times he became headstrong. .If he was in good health, he was not easily led or misled. Before the purchase of the Makerua swamp was completed, he saw his father about th® matter and urged him to reduce his financial interest from £12,000 to £SOOO for reasons that he had already stated. His father would have been unable to finance the rebuilding of Barrett’s Hotel if the securities werepledged. Witness and liis brother had paid £SOOO to their father, but he would not have been able to assist his father, supposing it li&cL boon necessary, in. tlic matter of the rebuilding of Barretts Hotel, although he and liis brother had been able to finance the hotel when it became their property. The explanation was that the money that had been lent to himself and his brother came from, a gentleman who would ndb have lent the money to witness’s father', because of a disagreement. Asked if he was not aware that the £31,000 cash paid by the Makerua Syndicate had been opposed by Dr Ohapple and insisted on by Mr John Plimmer and Mr Kirkcaldie, witness replied in the negative. He took the office of secretary to the company. at its inception. 'He resigned the day afterwards. Witness only remembered attending one meeting of the company at Dir Chappie’s house. He wo>uld not swear lie never attended a meeting at his father’s house. Witness had frequently told his father the concern Was turned, into a joint stock company, but he never seemed to realise the fact. Dr Findlay: Did you write to the directors of the (Makerua) company, advising them as to allotment of shares?. Witness: I don’t know. ' Did you write that letter (giving the document to witness) ?—Yes, that is my signature.

From this letter to the lawyer's of

the it appeal’s the gentleman responsible for robbing the company of the fractions of . shades, about which such a great noise has been made, is the mart in the box. Counsel read the letter, in which the solicitors were advised of the apportionment of the shares. -dess: That fe an excerpt from the minu.&s of the company. I never made the calculation, but as secretary advised the solicitors. You signed the latter? —Yes, as secfreJarjy- of the company. Ycfti wrote again on the 30th June; Jhat letter (produced) was sent to the lawyers ?—Yes. And on the strength of that they divided the shares? —No. the division was made previously. Do you suggest Dr Chappie was any party to the apportionment of the fractions of shares? —I never said so. You don’t say he did anything clipcreditable to get them? —I never said bo. ' Well, I rea% do not know why Mr Quick brought the matter up. You Wrote to Dr Chappie, and he sent a letter of explanation to you?—Yes. about eax months afterwards. Why did you not tell his Worship this in the morning?—l did not get an opportunity. . Witness admitted the authorship of a letter saying, he had decided that it would he better to relinquish the secretaryship in view of the unreasonable demands made by his father — demands which could not be sanctioned by a joint stock company. Examined as to the allotment of chares, he said his father had got 347. The shares were at £lO each. When the 1200 shares in the company were allotted, the shares were not worth what they are to-day. At the time the fraction arrangement was brought about he could not say what the shares were worth. Witness and his two brothers now had 400 shares each transferred from their father. The shares were paid up to £2 17s. Witness was not disposed to sell to-day. He would not say whether he would sell at £lO. Dir Findlay: W.ould you take £2o? Witness: Yes.

Ftulliy paid up ?—Yets. Well, I’ll make you the offer now! — I don’t want your offer. If X choose to go into a speculation, I can surely do 80.

.Witness, continuing, said he was not sorry now that his father had gone into the offer. He was not endeavouring to got £2OO out of Dr. Chappie. He had nothing to say regarding the ..lucidity, or otherwise, of his father’s temperament at the time he made over his property to his sons. Witness was not annoyed at the influence Dr Chappie had with his father.

Da- Findlay: Now, you Wrote to Dr Chappie in Jpme suggesting that your father should get rid of _ some of his worries by transferring his property to his sons ?—33t must have been after the arrangement was assented to. I want you to deny or admit you did write to him asking him to use his influence to effect a transfer? —I have gat no recollection of having done bo. Will you swear it ?—How can I if you have got the latter there? Will you swear you did not want Dr Chappie so to act? —I had no interview with Dr Chappie. -- Now, did yotu, or did you no-’b, write to him?—lf I did, it was anterior to the proposal. Witness said the property tax value of the land on which Barrett’s Hotel was built was £2OO per foot. He denied that'he was particularly eager to take the property when the proposal was first mooted. There were large obligations. He may have been anxious that the sale should proceed. Witness admitted writing to Dr Chappie a letter saying he desired to meet the latter to have a talk over his father’s affairs. “He has placed his property in the hands of certain people for sale,” Dr Findlay read, “and I have been told to-day that the Health Department have ordered the demolition of Barrett’s Hotel. Will you kindly appoint a time to see me, and oblige ?*’ The result, continued ..counsel, was that you got the property ? Witness: No; not the result of that. He denied that the bulk of bis father’s property had been given over to him and his brothers. His father had now an income of £ISOO or £I6OO a. year, and possessed various properties in shares and real estate. The old man had still half his property left. He was in the habit of making gifts to members' of his family without saying anything about it. It was not a fact that witness and his brothers had received large portions of the property, to the exclusion of his sisters.. The City Hotel was the old man’s property, but he (wit-

ness) admitted that it was pledged to protect witness and his brothers’ interest in the Makerua swamp. He had no consultation with his father concerning the dismissal of Dr Chappie, although he had signed a letter stating that he had had such a consultation. Asked if he took any interest in the licensing election, witness said he had taken no great interest, nor did he object to Dr GhaphS? being on the Bench. To Mi Quick: If the sale of Barrett’s Hotel had been effected, it would have resulted in a terrible sacrifice to the estate, and for that reason the letter to Dr Chappie had been written, asking him to bis influence to prevent the sale.

At that time there was no contemplation of witness and his brother taking over the property. Three hundred and fortyseven paid-up shares in the Makerua Estates Company were settled to make secure the legacies of witness’s sisters. In reply to a question as to the financial position of the City Hotel, witness said that it had been mortgaged to give private security on the Makerua swamp purchase, in consequence of Dr Chappie’s large number of contributing shares. As soon as witness and his brother could make other financial arrangements, the property would be relieved, and go back to the estate. When his father died, witness would have no interest in the estate. To-day his father had no financial difficulties —no mortgages, no debts, no responsibilities. (“Happy man,” said Mr Quick.) FRESH EVIDENCE. Dr James, called by plaintiff’s counsel, gave evidence on the question of atropine poisoning. He said he would not expect to find atropine poisoning in a patient to whom l-6th of a grain, of morphia and l-40Obh of a grain of atropine had been administered daily, for four or five weeks. In answer to Mr Quick, witness said in every case it would be his endeavour to use morphia and atropine as little as he possibly could. Dr Logan also gave evidence. Arthur Henry Gisbsonsaid he had atropine prescribed for a malady from which he was suffering. For over twelve months now he had taken seven or eight doses, amounting to about l-7th of a grain, per day, and felt no ill effects. PLAINTIFF RECALLED. Dr William Allan Chappie, plaintiff, recalled, said his" sister had applied injections of morphia under witness’s supervision for ten years with the greatest skill. Dr Gibbs had taken bis (witness’s) sister’s statement about tire quantity administered and formed his eon elusion. It would be impossible to. produce atropine poisoning in any man with the dose administered to Mi- Plimmer. Witness did not know how any man holding a medical certificate could have come to the conclusion that atropine poisoning existed. Dr Gibbs’s diagnosis would not commend itself to a student in his first year’s course. Even if atropine poisoning was present, Dr Gibbs’s prescription was Wrong —be had prescribed the wrong drugs. Regarding the alleged sipping of wine, witness said that on one solitary occasion Mr Plimmer asked him to join him in toasting his recovery and succielss to the Makerua Company. In justice to himself and his convictions,, he 'desired to have this explanation made.

Mr Quick, in addressing his Worship on the facts of the case, said it was a new doctrine to him that the sons of a father were n&t to step in and prevent their parent being exploited, as he alleged defendant had been —that a stranger should be allowed to step in and replace them. The suggestion that plaintiff was a martyr to his prohibition sentiments was absurd. The charge brought against the sons of his client was an abominable one. Mr Pliminiar had no desire to make money out of Dr Chappie, and he asked his Worship to say if the money claimed in the account had ever been righteously earned. Dr Findlay then delivered a review of the case for his client. Counsel’s addresses lasted an hour and a half, and the case concluded at 6.30 p.m. His Worship -said he wotuld give judgment on the 19th inst., at 10.30 a.m. ,