DISPUTE OVER FEE.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 12452, 19 September 1933, Page 5

DISPUTE OVER FEE.

CHEQUE INVOLVED. A NURSE’S ENGAGEMENT. The sum of £ls was in dispute in a claim by Florence Hannah Omasted Hunt (Mr'S. T. Tinney) against Raymond Walter Hibbard (Mr G. H. Smith), heard iri the Pahiatua Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr J. Miller, S.M. Mr Tinney said the claim was in respect of a cheque given by Hibbard to his client which defendant had stopped. t Mr Smith said that plaintiff was engaged through correspondence by. Mrs Hibbard to attend her during her period of accouchment. Plaintiff was in the house six weeks ‘waiting for the event and arranged with Mrs Hibbard to charge only one guinea per week while waiting. At the end of six weeks Mrs Hunt suddenly said she was going away and this caused Hibbard’s wife some anxiety. Plaintiff interviewed the husband about a cheque and said the amount was £l3 18s. Defendant told her that that surely was “altogether too hot” and plaintiff agreed then to take £ls 15s less wages tax 15s which defendant deducted. Soo* after plaintiff left the house defendant spoke to his wife about the fee and then learned for the first time that the arrangement between plaintiff and Mrs Hibbard was for Mrs Hunt to receive a guinea per week while waiting. He realised he had made a mistake, so went next day, on the Sunday, to see Mrs Hunt at her home in Woodville. He explained the position, but as plaintiff would not refund portion he stopped the cheque. Mr Smith said he understood that plaintiff was not a registered nurse and so was not really entitled to make ’any charge at all and she was also liable to a fine for nursing without a doctor’s permission. Raymond Walter Hibbard, a small dairy farmer at Mangatainoka, said his wife engaged Mrs Hunt at 3 guineas per week. She was there six weeks and then one Saturday said she was leaving. This upset Mrs Hibbard. Witness paid Mrs Hunt £ls instead of £lB 18s asked for first of all by plaintiff. Witness discovered after that his wife had arranged to pay one guinea a week so stopped the c heque and Mrs Hunt said she would sue for it. To Mr Tinney he admitted that he had never discussed the charge with his wife during plaintiff’s presence at the farm. His wife he had considered quite capable of dealing with that} side of it. When he told plaintiff he would stop the cheque because she had made an arrangement of a guinea a week with Mrs Hibbard, plaintiff said that Airs Hibbard was not speaking the truth. Hugh Paterson, medical practitioner at Pahiatua, deposed that before the slump the charge for registered nurses was £4 4s per week for maternity engagements and £2 2 s per week waiting fee. Nowadays the nurses were allowed to make their own arrangements so far as the c harge was concerned. He had known of some registered nurses accepting a guinea per week and even less. Irene Muriel Hibbard, wife of defendant, said that when plaintiff left her on the Saturday she said she had to attend a case on the Sunday. Witness had no idea what her husband had paid Airs Hunt till after the. latter had gone. Her husband

asked her then why she had continued to keep plaintiff at 3 guineas per week and witness informed him that she had made an arrangement for only a guinea per week. When her husband learned this ho hastened to Woodville to interview plaintiff whom he had overpaid. Alaud Amelia Lett, wife of Air Charles Lett, farmer of Alangatailioka, and a neighbour of defendant’s, recalled a conversation with plaintiff, who mentioned that her charge while waiting for Airs Hibbard was a guinea per week. The plaintiff, Florence Hannah Omasted Hunt, gave evidence that the arrangement was three guineas per week. She went on a certain date, but the accouchement did not take place till two months later.

Airs Hibbard had never spoken about reducing the fee to a guinea. Witness would never have entertained the idea to remain on and assist in the house at one guinea per week. To Airs Lett witness said she never spoke of receiving a guinea a week. She simply said “the* guineas are packing up,” and indicated that this was not too good for defendant. Witness claimed that Airs Hibbard was not a “scrap upset” about her leaving because they had talked about it often, weeks before. The night she 'left defendant and his wife were together when Air Hibbard wrote out the cheque. There was no unpleasantness at all. Airs Hibbard never left the room. She was not upset at witness’ leaving. She kept remarkably well throughout plaintiff’s stay It was simply through Airs Hibbard saying she might want her at any moment that witness stayed on. To Air Smith witness said she had received once before three guineas per week for waiting. Richard Gordon Hunt, labourer, of Woodville, recalled the visit of defendant to. his mother’s house on the Sunday morning, at Woodville. All* Hibbard said: “I’ve got you. I’ve got your letter in black and white to show you. broke the> contract.” Defendant. asked for the cheque so that ho could tear it up. Rone Hunt, of \Voodvdle, testified to hearing the* same conversation. I in l Magistrate said this was a case where a cheque was given by the defendant Air Hibbard, (for services) to plaintiff who was engaged as maternity nurse during the attendance on his wife. The cheque

having been given the onus was on the giver of the cheque to prove his case, so defendant had led the evidence stating the reasons why he bad stopped the cheque. AH he (his Worship) had to decide was whether defendant was justified in his action. Plaintiff said she went to defendant ot a fee of 3 guineas per week for waiting, and during the appointment ill’s Hibbard declared she had made a re-arrangement with plaintiff for ® guinea per week, and it appeared to the Magistrate as if this was who r, very likely happened considering the length of time plaintiff was waiting. It was not likely that a farmer in a small way could go on pavino- three guineas per week all that'time. The story of the defendant, therefore, was more likely to be true and as corroboration the Court must accept Airs Lett's evidence' about Mi's, Hunt remarking that she was receiving a guinea fier week from defendant " If he had any doubt about the truth of defendant's story the'Magistrate said he would have fixed the rate of fee at the figure indicated by Dr. Paterson—a guinea per week. He would give judgment for the amount offered by defendant a guinea per week (total £6 6s), but would reserve final judgment until he had settled the issue of the costs, and who was 1o pay.

Alter considering the matter for a short time All- Miller} said he would give judgment for plaintiff for £6 6s plus Court costs 10s, less solicitor’s lee £1 Is and witnesses’ expenses £1 0s 6d allowed the defendant.