DENTISTS AND THEIR DIFFERENCES

NZ Truth, Issue 579, 22 July 1916, Page 5

DENTISTS AND THEIR DIFFERENCES

"GUM DIGGERS " " AIR' THEIR GRIEVANCES IN MAGISTRATE'S COURT SOME SIDELIGHTS SHED ON AN ALLEGED PARTNERSHIP Was Douglas Wright m the Wrong? — Some Pending Prosecutions (From "Truth's" Chrlitchurch Rep.) ' '.. ■

The first of what promises to be a series of "litigatorial scraps" on the subject of a dentist's registration came off m the Christchurch S.M.s Court last week before Magistrate Bailey, when Arthur George Maitland, a wellknown local molar extractor, was charged on the information of Douglas W right,, another '•gumdigger." with permitting an unregistered person, to wit, Douglas Wright, to carry on dentistry m the name of A. G. Maitland. lkwyer Johnston appeared for the Informant m the complicated "washup" and Lawyer Hunt represented the defendant, tho case apparently swivelltng on tho question of whether or not Wright, While pulling teeth under the DR. JONES AND MAITLAND SHINGLE, really was a member of the firm. Lawyer Johnston kicked oft*, but Mr. Hunt was on his "pins" m a moment, protesting that as the action had been laid by a private individual and not by the Dental Association or police, the cuse was reduced to one actuated by spite, and, therefore, there was no need to go into * the parties' relations. Mr. Johnston, he submitted, should confine himself to the period of the charge, viz., from February 1 to February 3, 19i6. Mr. Johnston argued that the spite was all on the other side, Maitland having said that he would crush Wright and had circularised the country. He had taken out a summons against him arid gone up "the backstairs" to put tho polico on him m regard to other matters. The present action was brought under Seotlon 22 of the Dentists' Act, 1908 - , The S.M.: But why has the matter been brought to law. seeing that Wright Is charging Maitland with something m which he himself participated? Sir. Johnston replied that Maitland. being a man of means and on the register, was much more to blame than Wright, and at least should hnve been true to the traditions of his profession, and not entered into such an arrangement with an unregistered practitioner. Mr. Hunt argued that if there wus an arrangement made, It ended m May, 1915, when Wright went to Invercarglll, and, consequently, had nothing whatever to do with the present charge. Mr. Johnston replied that Dr. Maltland knew from February, 1915, that Wright, although unregistered, was carrying on the business and doing the work of dentistry 6n his premises and, notwithstanding Mr. Hunt's argument that Wright was doing work for which Maitland paid him a weekly wage, the latter was committing an offence. Counsel called on Mr. Hunt to produce the agreement made between the parties m 1914 and, when Mr. Hunt refused, the informants produced a \slgnod copy of the agreement and stated that m it Dr. Maitland granted Wright tho use of his surgery, over Barlow's Buildings, m tho evenings after 5 and on Fridays and Saturdays. Wright also was to have the use, m common, of Dr. MalUand'a mechanic's room, and it was agreed that Multland Bhould do the work for Wright and retain one -third of the amount and pay Wright one third. There was also a clause respecting tho inspection of the books and for all these privileges Wright was to PAY MAITLAND £500 A YEAR, which, Mr. Johnston contended, showed clearly that Wright was working there on a partnership basis. Mr. Hunt Interposed that the agreement was not part of the case, and should not be made public, but Mr. Johnßton pointed out that it was made In 1915 and was to last three years. He admitted that, after a few months, a fresh agreement was verbally entered into, under which Wright was to go on working as m the past, but that Dr. Maitland wbb to take 80 per cent, and do as much as he could. That arrangement continued down to Fobmary last and Wright had drawn £2 per week on account of his share, but could got no settlement, ao he collected tho moneys and kept his sharo and thus got £13 ahead. Tho S.M. said he could not have the time of the Court wasted with ao many details. Mr Johnston would have to arrive at his points more directly. Continuing, counsel said that Wright conducted operations at Maltland's surgery Juat as If ho was a registered man and it would bo shown that Maitland had even Introduced Wright to clients as his partner, .besides' having sent out tho acounts for his work In tho name of Drs. Jones and Maitland. All along, ho urged, Maitland had committed a breach of the Dentists' Act. Since trouble had arisen, however, and Wright had a police proaeautlon pending against him, he hnd to protect blrnuelf and j?ivo the public a full knowledge of hla position. Vie had boon forced into bringing the present action. Douglas Wright, the Informant, a dental mechanic, gavo evidence tv the effect that on February 18. 19i5. he hutl entered into an arrangement wiih Maitland, na «et out m tho copy of agreement produced. Mr. Hunt objected arid tho S.M. asked witness: Wa» that ujrreeroent ; terminated? — Yes. _ ! Tho S,M.: Then that settles it. Tho | agreement m not admissible, i Mr. Johnston: I submit your Worship's ruling Is wrong. The S.M.: Tho agreement la cancelled and you cannot put It m. Mr. Johnston: I want to put It m for the purpoaes of — The 8.M.: You cannot put it m. If a subsequent arrangement wu» made, you niUKI provo Jt. To witness: You terminated that agreement verbally; what happened after? Witness, In reply. Bald he wns to GIVE MAITLAN'D 80 PER CENT, nnd retnfn 20 per cent, of all the work which he procured In the country or city, witness at thp same time to have the u*e of defendant's xurgery and name, which he paid for previously under iha agreement Just discloned. Mr. Johnston: So that your practice wji« carried on as Jonea nnd Maltland's?—Yea. Continuing, wttncsn iiaid that he travelled the country ami Interviewed i>ntlents for appointment* at the surttcry In the city. Then. In consequence of the«e appointment*, it was th» «r»nernl thing for him to <U> the necessary work Jn the sursery during the huura betwen 5 p.m. nnd 9 p.m. week <lay« nnd nil tltiy on Friday and B»turdn>\ That went on till February 3. the necounts for mich work being item out Jn the nam* <tt Him firm, Mr. Johnston: You are nn expert In demnl work. tanltle* biMnu a capable And efficient operator?-- Ye*. I wan at Ciuv'K Dents I UofcpUuL lxmdon. for 12 month* nnd At Ui<- Denial Hospital, tMc**ler S<ju«re. London, for two year*. Continuing. \hr wltneftK fuiUi thAt on coming to Now ZealMul h- itUl ' itoe rvKinwr, firmly, because he wa» not I very (Jnanel&l und, nccgmlly. becftumhe wiub not «ure whether ho would

settle here and, as it mean two years' "swatting" for a certificate which was no good if he decided to go to Australia, he allowed the matter to stand aver temporarily. ■••«.■ ' . Was the fact of you being unregistered known to Dr. Maltland?— -Yos. Was there any distinction made between the class of work you did and the work of Dr. MatUand? — Oh, no. 1 attended to all the work that I procured, regardless of its nature. Coming down to tho period under discussion. . YoU re-modelled a denture for Mrs. R. T. Day, of Woodend, on January 14 last?— Yes, an upper gum block denture. ' ' Was that lady one of the patlonta under the 80 per cent— 2o per cent, arrangement ?— Yes. Continuing, witness Bald that although Dr. Maltland took the drat impression of the lady's denture, witness carried out all the subsequent work without the doctor's supervision. Witness mentioned . several ' other operations, of a somewhat similar nature, which he had carried out at the surgery without defendant's' supervision, and identified an entry (produced) of the work, made m the handwriting of Miss Martin, Maitland's bookkeeper. He also received a detailed statement (produced) from Maitland's solicitors, showing that up to March 16, the amount of work done was £493, of which . £77 WAS DUE TO HIM. Me had frequently been- lntroducodUo patients by Maltland, as the laUer's partner. ' . > Mr. Hunt: How long have you been In this city? — Three years. When you came, you were In a state of destitution and implored Maltland to give you 'work?— lf Dr. Maitland swears that, he's telling a diabolical lie! Were you out of work?— -Well, yes. For how long? — A few months. Had you much money?— Well. I wasn't by any meane hard up. My wife has means. Anyhow, Dr. Maltland gavo you work? — Yes. The principal part of whloh was canvassing m the country, on a motor cycle?— Yes. You extracted teeth In the country (which you were quite entitled to do), and were to send other work to Dr. Maitland? — Ye*, for the first month. Wasn't that the bulk of your work? "—No. Dr. Maltland was so impressed by my work that he took me Into partnership on the basis of £500 a year. When you came back from Invercarfftil, you were to get 20 per. cant, of tho work whloh your trips into the country brought? — Yes, and Dr. Maltland was to Ret 80 per cent. ' You took your 20 per cent, regularly from Miss Martin at the rate of £2 per week? — Yes. And, your extractions were your own profit? — Yes. ■ • ■ ■ Did you have the key of Maitland's private surgery? — I' had a front door key and tho key of what was oalled my own surgery. The key of Dr. Maltland'3 surgery was kept where wo could all get it. Did you, during this period, regard yourself as Dr. Maitland's partner?— Certainly, and I spoke of myself as such. The S.M.: Did you also share Dr. Maitland's losses?— -No. The S.M.: Then ono can hardly call it a partnership. Mr. Hunt: Did you operate on his [ banking account? — No, that is done by his nurse. But you know that an unregistered man couldn't enter Into partnership with Dr. Maltland?— l know that I was a partner and that he Introduced me to people as his partner. . You wore a partner m this big business and getting only £2 per week? — Yes, £2 on account, remember? That was to pay the running cost of the motor cycle. I HAD TO FIGHT LIKE FURY to get it. If the police had not laid an Information ngalnst you, you would not have brought this action, would you? — The police did not lay an information against me. Dr. Maltland did. When I left him. he *aid to me, "Look hero, Wright, I'll crush you like an egg." As a matter ot tact, has not Dr. I Maltland been very good to you?— Good to me! I wish I had never soon him. On whose account did you canvass? — Drs. Jones and Maltland. Did you share tho losses of the firm as a partner would? — No, that was allowed for m the 20 per cent, which I wns to got. Re-examined, witness said ho had never been allowed to see Dr. Malt* land's books. Ada' M. Day, of Woodend. said that < she, among others, had beon Interviewed by Wright on behalf or Jones and Maltlnnd, and. m pursuance of that Interview, she came to tho firm's surgery In Chrlstchurch, where Dr. Maltlnnd took an Impression of ht»r denture, Maitland did not mention Wright on i that occasion, but. at a later date, ho I asked witness If his partner had been !at Woodond the day before. Tho work 1 done by Maitland was remodollod last 1 January, when witness wa* shown into i tho same surgery and Wright did tho i work, from which she subsequently rejcelved an account from Jones And i Maitland. | Replying to Mr, Hunt, witness admitted that she had asked for Mr. Wright when she came to the surgery, but It was his day (Friday), She was positive, that Maltlftnd referred to Wright as his partner. Alfred Cassldy. of Woodond. pave evidence that Wright had dono similar dental work for htm at tho Christ* church surgery, and the account had been rendered m the name of Jones and MnJUtiud. Witness understood that Wright wan a partner. Similar evidence was given by Richnnl Kcppler, of Walkarl, and Reginald Hamilton.' of Chrlstchurch. tho latter deposing that h«t went to tho wurgnry on a Friday evening and met Dr. Maitland, whom he asked to call hl« part* nor. Mr. Wright. Mallland did so, Jem Do Mau«, a donuil nurae, who had been In MalUantl'a employ for three years, sold she recollected Wright coming, fifteen months before she lejt. She waa Introduced to him an Dr. Mu4t» land'tt partner. At present hli« was working with WrJrhl at F. JUgga'*. At MutUund'M, WrlffhCn cumoui wax to tour the country on week days and operate at the surgery In the »v<ming* and on Friday and Saturday. WHn«*n waited principally on Wright's oj*>railon» when b«> wa* In th* mirirerr. and Ills work wtm Kvneral. Tho wltu<*«jics who Knvo evidence wer« nt tended to i>y Wright, without. Dr. MaHland'w linmetHutn wupcrvtHlon ami Dr. Maklnnd never touched Wright's work. Occtutlonully t>*<>i>lr> earn*? In and nuked, for Dr. Jonw*. !imt thvre lh«in JIKINO NO I)R, JONES m tho Urm. wltncwt had beon m too habit of feuding Utera to Dr. Sydney

: Jones, until Dr. Maltland told her that I it was Mr. Wright whom those patients were asking for, and that she should show them into Mr. Wrigftt or call | Maltland If Wright was away. . [ Mr. Hunt: How many people asked I for Dr. Jones?— Oh, several 1 reineml ber one occasion particularly when 'someone came, up and asked for Dr. [Jones. Dr. Maitland. showed the person Into Mr. Wright, who wanted to correct the patient's Impression that his name waa Dr. Joneß. Dr. Maltland Interrupted htm, and said, "It's all right, sonny; leave It to me." This closed the case for the prosecution. „ -; ;•:- . ... ; ', .' ' ,■,.* . ... '■ . .Lawyer Hun^"subninted that tho information , should b&' dismissed without the defence being called on, as there was absolutely no evidence of Wright having been allowed to carry on business; m Maitland's name. " He waa merely an employee and a registered dentist waa allowed by Act of Parliament to emfiloy as many unregistered dentists as he chose. The mere pulling of teeth was not classed as a dental operation any more than the strapping of a wooden leg on to a person "wns a surgical operation. Tho Act excluded extractions from being classed as operations, apparently for tho purpose of protecting " the country chemist who might draw an aching molar. Tho Act only desired that a registered mnn should bo on tho premises when dental opentlona wore being performed, nnd it could not be said that Wright conducted any operation* whilst Maltland wns not on tho promises. The S.M. decided that tho defence should be heard. Laura Helon Martin said that she had beon employed for nine/years by Dr. Maltland, ns book-keeyfcr. and a nurso m the surgery, Sha remembered Wright's return from Invorcarglll und the now arrangement tlmt he was to go Into the country and ■ EXTRACT TEETH AND CANVASS ORDERS for Maltland on a basis of 20 por cent., which ho should be allowed. Ho waa regularly paid £2 per week, which waa Credited against his commission. There was no suggestion that he was Maltland's partner, and witness was always under tho impression that he merely canvassed for tho firm. The bulk of Wright's work was that ho sent tho people m and Maltland and the latter's mechanics did tho work, Maltland supplying all tho material. Maitland waa never away from tho surgory for more than half a day. Witness never heard anything 1 of the Dr. Jones incidents. Mr. Johnston: Will <you swear that there were not many dental operations performed by Mr. Wright when Dr. Maitland was not about tho plaae?— I'LL SWEAR THAT WILLINGLY. Do you contradict Mrs. Day'a statement that all her work was done without Maltland's supervision ?—l don't contradict It; but I think sho's mistaken. ' Will you swear that Mr. Wright has not done work In the absence of Dr. Maitland?— Yea. I've said Dr. Maltland was never away. Did he not go to Aahburton ?—Perhaps ho did on a Saturday afternoon. Continuing, witness admitted thut tlioro was a second surgery, but dpnled thut It wa« recognised na Mr. Wright's surgery. Dr. F. W. Thompson, she said, sometime* used it m addition to his own. Has not Mr. Wright been held out to you as a partner m the flrra?— -Never. Have you seen anything to suggest that he was a partner? — No. Are you euro of that?— Positive. I want you to be careful. Have you never referred to him yourself as a partner, or m any way suggested that ho was a partner ?— No. This aocount (produced) is :n your handwriting? — Yes. Then how does It happen that although you say you havo never suggested that Wright was a partner, this account In your handwriting Is renderod as being from Jonea, Maitland and Wright?— lt's a 6u«tom of tho firm. Tho client was probably Introduced by Mr. Wright. This concluded the evidence and tb* B.M. reserved his decision. WRIGHT IN THE WRONG; In the B.M.'fl Court on Tuesday, another couple of phases of tho toothpullers' tangle wore dished up before Magistrate Bailey, tho police proceeding against Douglns Wright und F. Biffs on a charge thut "not being an association constating wholly of donÜbU», they did exhibit at tho place ot business of the said association tho words, 'The Metropolitan Dontal Co., 1 Implying that such association was registered under the Dentist*' Aot. 1H08." Lawyer Johnston, on bolmlf of tho defendants, admitted that a broach of the statuto had boon oeoiuiloned but said that stops would bo taken Immediately to rectify the mnttor. In f*ot, them had been negotiations m that direction for some tlmo past, but the dof«ndants* noglect of ono small detail made It obvious that a plea of guilty would havo to b© entered. The dofondanu» were each fined £8 and costs. MAITLAND MENTIONED. Following tho caso agalust Wright and Biggs, tho polioo mentioned the ?E» B^ «♦,?' Arthur Goor *° Maltland. charged with permitting an unregistered person to pntctlco dentistry In hi» narno and also on nvo charges of p«rmittfnsr an unregistered ponton to perform a dental operation. Tho case wob adjourned until July 21,