STORY OF LOAN.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20274, 7 April 1934, Page 17

STORY OF LOAN.

Tennis Player Sued by Woman. COMMENT BY JUDGE. (Special to the " Star,") LONDON, February 27. Dr P. D. Spence, the well-known lawn tennis player, was the defendant in an action heard by Mr Justice Goddard in the King’s Bench Division. He was sued by Mrs Beatrice Annie Bennett, of St Margaret’s Road. Brockley, who claimed the return of £l2O which she said she had lent the doctor in 1932. Dr Spence denied owing the money, saying that £ll7 was due as medical charges to him and three other doctors with whom he had been in partnership. Mr Francis Laskey, for Mrs Bennett, stated that in 1930 she was unmarried. Dr Spence was attending her and they became on friendly terms. In October he told her he was short of money and asked for a loan. Mrs Bennett gave him a cheque for £l2O. Cross-examined by Mr Granville Sharp (for Dr Spence), Mrs Bennett agreed that, for a considerable time, she had been addicted to the habit of taking drugs. “ I had, however, cured myself of the habit before Dr Spence attended -me,” she said. A maidservant to Mrs Bennett gave evidence of an occasion when a bottle of champagne was sent out for specially for the doctor. Mr Granville Sharp said that Dr

Spence admitted there had been a loan of £l2O, but contended that it was to be worked off against medical attendances. Dr Spence, in the witness box, said Mrs Bennett admitted that she had been treated for taking drugs by a doctor she called “ Uncle Dick.” After a consultation with his partners it was concluded that it would be bad treatment to make her totally abstain from the drug, and he injected morphia. Judgment was given for Dr Spence. Criticism of Defendant. Mr Justice Goddard, giving judgment, said: “The case is difficult because Mrs Bennett is obviously a highly neurotic woman. She was trying to tell the truth in the witnessbox, but, by reason of the illness from which she had suffered, I will have to consider her evidence with care. “ I cannot say Dr Spence made a satisfactory witness. There are many matters in this case which I hope he regrets. “ I think it wrong to suggest that Mrs Bennett is a drug addict. She had some operations and received drugs, and, as often happens, it was difficult for her to get on without them. “ Perhaps it would be more satisfactory in drug cases if a doctor of more experience were in charge. If there were any blame, a considerable responsibility rested upon the partners, because the money had gone into the partnership. I think Mrs Bennett was willing t to pay Dr Spence a guinea a visit,’’ . his lordship proceeded, “and I have my own opinion as to the reason. I have not got to consider any question of malpractice or professional etiquette. I do, however, feel sure that

Dr Spence will appreciate how undesirable it is for a medical man to accept a loan from a woman patient, more especially when the patient is in the condition Mrs Bennett was.” The Judge found that Dr Spence was entitled to settle with his partners for £ll7, and that he had a set-off against Mrs Bennett to that extent.