RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 633, 4 October 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

*> (Before. G. G. FitzGerald, Esq., R.M.) Thttesday, Octobee 3. There was no criminal business before the Court. - . M'KiUop v. Ladbrookc. — Plaintiff sought to recover the sum of L 4 19s, bciug balance of account due by the defendant for money lent, and board and lodging. The original debt was L 24 19s, but" the plaintiff had credited the defendant with L2O on account, and now sought to recover the balance L 4 19s. Defen- ->- dant admitted owing the plaintiff Ll 19s W^ for money lout, and had paid that amount f into Court ; thafc brought another action for L2O for money lent by her to plaintiff to complete the purchase ot two houses. The defendant denied that L2O • had been given by her to plaintiff on account of a debt duo by her to the defendant. The two actions by consent were tried together. Mr Harvey ap-

peared for Mrs M'Kcllop, and Mr South for Mrs Ladbroke. Mrs M'Kellop was called, and stated — that oh the 4th of July, a balance was struck between them, and defendant owed her Ll4 lGs, since that^jo had lent defendant some small sums ' of money, which added to an amount due for board and lodging, increased the debt to L 24 19s. Defendant liad paid her L2O on account, leaving a balance of L 4 19s due. Cross-examined by Mr South — Defendant advanced plaintiff" L2O towards paying for two houses bought from a person named M'Lean. She had never paid, it back. Tho book in which she kept an account of the transactions between them was lost. Emma Stanley was called — She recollected the 4th July. There was a settlement of accounts between plaintiff and defendant on that day. The defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of L 1 4165. Witness saw the account. It was agreed by Mrs Ladbroke, that plaintiff was to pay herself out of the L2O cheque. Cross-examined by Mr South — Witness was present when de- « fendant gave plaintiff a cheque for L2O to pay for two houses. Tho book in which Mrs Killop kept the accounts, has been lost. It was taken out of a gentleman's coat pocket. I saw the book. It was hi the pocket of a coat belonging to Mr M'Kellop. I had the coat on. I was having my hair curled, and not having a morning wrapper, I put the coat on. The account was made up in the book to the 4th July. It showed defendant MjaUrted to plaintiff in the amount ■HKy stated Ll4 16s. The defendant Elizabeth Ladbroke stated that she had borrowed* from the plaintiff on the 28th July Ll, and on'the 3rd September 19s, in all Ll 19s, which amount she had paid into account. She had borrowed other monies at different times, but had always paid them back. She did not owe the plaintiff anything for board. There was no balance struck on the 4th July. -On the sth September, witness requested the plaintiff' to hand her some jewellery she had of her's in her possession. It was then plaintiff asked witness for some money on account of this debt. Witness replied that she (plaintiff) owed her L2O lent on the 20th of July. (Cheque produced.) When witness lent plaintiff the L2O to buy two houses, plaintiff promised to pay her back. Mr Cozens stated — that the plaintiff bought two houses, and handed him the cheque produced as part payment. The money was advanced by the defendant in witness' presence, to enable the plaintiff to purchase the property. In the case of M'Kellop v. Ladbroko, his worship gave judgment for the amount paid and costs, Ll 19s ; and in Ladbroke v. M'Kcllop for the amount claimed L2O. Lockhart v. M'Nab.— A claim for LIOO for goods supplied. — Mr Button for the plaintiff, Mr South for the defendant. — It was not denied that the goods had been supplied. — Mr South applied that the plaintiff be nonsuited, on the ground that the defendant had his protection. — His Worship stated that the fact of defendant having his protection might be a bar to the issuing of any execution, but not to the plaintiff obtaining a judgment. — JudgniwiTTwas, therefore, given for the amount claused, with costs. Lbuisson v. Klappe and Korlegast. — The plaintiff, as assignee of the estate of Marks and Isaacs, sued to recover the value of certain goods supplied, L3B 3s 9d. —Mr South for the plaintiff, Mr Button for the defendant. — Judgment was consented to, on the condition that execution was not to issue for two months. Luks v. Browne. — A claim for L 22 10s 6d, for goods supplied.— Mr Rees appeared for the defendant, who consented to a judgment. Mr Rees produced his protection order. — Judgment by consent for the amount claimed, with costs. Dermott v. v Griffith.— The plaintiff, Dr Dermott, sought to recover from the defendant, the manager of the Pioneer Water-race Company the sum of L 24 14s, for medical and surgical attendance on his wife and child, at the Kanieri, and also for medicine supplied. Mr Button for the plaintiff, Mr South for the defendant--Mr Button called the plaintiff, who stated. that he was requested by the defendant to attend his wife in her confinement. He was afterwards employed to attend the defendant's wife andffchjldf-./Witness told him he could not a"tfcend again unless he was paid. He to& paid" LlO for attending Mrs Gxiffitttlh her confinement. Witness after^tfesTattended defendant's wife and child. ; The two accounts are included in 'the bill of particulars. Ten visits at L 2 2s are charged for. When witness applied for payment of his account, defendant wrote to him the following letter — "Kanieri, August 12th, 1867, Mr Dermott, Revell street, Hokitika. Dear Sir, — Enclosed I received your note, with bill for medical attendance upon my wife and baby for £24 15s. Intended to settle with you at once if you had charged moderate as you promised. I was rather astonished when your bill came to hand, when, in my opinion, the cause of it was your own neglect. I am determined not to pay the half except lam compelled. lam sorry to have to speak so plain, but it looks to me like an extortion. Yours, &c, H. Griffith." Cross-examined by Mr South — Witness first saw Mr Griffith on the 19th of June, . He asked me to go to the Kanieri to attend his wife, as he did not consider a woman sufficient. He told defendant he would charge him £10 10s. When a medical man is engaged to attend a a woman in her confinement it is customary to visit her for eight days. In general cases witness attends until they are convalescent. He did not in this instance, because it was a serious case and a long distance from town. It was a serious case. She was three days in labor, and witness thought it best .to call in an additional medical man. Witness used all necessary care. He did not recollect having told the defendant that he had trusted too much to the nurse. He may have told him so. On the 20th June, the day after the confinement, witness told the defendant he' jcould not go to the Kanieri again without he was paid. Defendant agreed to pay witness, but no sum was fixed. (Witness here described tl*ejteasons of Mrs Griffiths' protracted illriiSs). Witness was unwell when he attended the defendant's wife. Up to the 3rd of September (when witness sent in his bill) defendant, his wife, and his wife's sister expressed their greatest satisfaction at his treatment of the case. Since he sent in his bill defendant's wife had called at his house about three weeks ago, and expressed the greatest confidence in the witness. Witness offered to settlo the ease outside the Court when the case

was adjourned last week. To the best of witness's belief, he paid a visit to the Kanieri on the 20th Juno. . He did not recollect the occasion particularly. The results which occurred after the birth of the child did not arise from the fact of the mother not having been properly bandaged. The effects to the mother were not in consequence of witness trusting too much to the nurse. The charges were usual. Defendant paid plaintiff £11 on the 19th of June. The witness used Ms usual skill and attention in the case. The after effect did not arise from any want of attendance or skill on his part. Re-examined by Mr Button — Witness attended the child. Two of the visits were especially for the child. It had inflamation of the eye. That did not arise from any neglect. Charles Arming deposed that he was manager for Mr. Prosser. In June last the defendant told plaintiff that Dr Dermott, by his skill and attention, had been the means of sating the life of his wife and child. Cross-examined by Mr South — This conversation took place about a week or so after the confinement. — Peter Massey deposed that he was a billiard marker. He was at Dr Dcrmott's house when the defendant called there on one occasion. Witness heard Dr Dermott say it was very inconvenient to leave town, and if he went up to the Kanieri he would have to charge for it. He believed it was with reference to Dr Derniott's attending defendant's wife,— Mr South, for the defence, called Henry Griffith, who deposed that he was manager of the Pioneer Water Race Company. Witness called at Dr Dennott's house on the 18th of June. He had a conversation with plaintiff's brother, who informed him that Dr Dermott was very ill. The plaintiff shortly afterwards made his appearance. Witness informed him of the object of l"s visit, and the plaintiff told him his charge would be ten guineas. Witness remarked, " supposing it is all over before we get there," and plaintiff replied, "it will be better for us both." They walked up together. Plaintiff appeared to be very ill. Plaintiff remained at the witness s house till the morning of the 19th. Defendant's wife was confined between eight and ten on the morning of that day. Shortly after the child was born— about half an hour afterwards — plaintiff asked me to excuse him. As he went out, plaintiff said, "your wife will be all right in a few days." He stated that he had received a letter from his brother, informing him that Dr Acheson was attending his patients, and he would have to leave. He said he would come again and charge a little extra for it. He made a kind of apology for leaving witness's wife. Plaintiff did not pay a visit on the 20th ; he came on the 21st. On the 21st he said, witness's wife was getting on all right. The child had a slight discharge from the eye. When the plaintiff spoke about calling in another medical man, he mentioned the names of Drs Beswick, Young, Acheson, and Berndt. Witness sent a man into town to fetch another medical man, and Dr Mourilyan came up. Dr Dermott declined to consult with him, as he was not a qualified practitioner. He told witness that he had better payDr Mourilyan his fee and let him return. Witness did so. On each occasion of the plaintiff's visiting my wife he said she was getting on very well. She could not sit down, It was from the same cause. Plaintiff made no mention of any extra charges till he sent in. his bill. On receiving his bill witness wrote plaintiff a letter (given above).; A day or two afterwards (Tuesday) plaintiff's brother called at witness's - house, and told him if he did not pay it by the following Thursday, plaintiff would put the matter into the hands of a lawyer. Witness replied that he nad better do so^ as he did not mean to pay the bill. Some time afterwards he met thc^plaiiitiff. In a conversation they had at this time Dr. Dermott remarked that he ought to have charged three guineas a visit instead of two. Witness told him that what he did at last he ought to have done before. He had kept his wife in misery, and himself running up and down. He had been guilty of neglect. Plaintiff offered to reduce the account to LlB, but witness said he considered LlO or Ll2 would be sufficient. Plaintiff added that if witness thought he had been guilty of neglect he would not make any reduction. Witness met the plaintiff at Mr M'Kenzie's, and asked him if there was any probability of their settling the matter. Witness called at plaintiff's house two or three days afterwards, and examined thq books. Plaintiff offered to take L2O. The next witness heard about the matter was a letter he received from Messrs Button and Reid, requesting payment of the account within a week. About a week or a fortnight afterwards witness was served with a summons. When the case was first put down for hearing plaintiff asked witness if he would leave the matter to bo settled by their solicitors. Witness agreed to this proposal. A few days afterwards witness again met plaintiff. Ho told witness that his solicitors had received a letter from his (witness') solicitor, but he had refused to accept the terms he proposed. [The letter was read, and ran as follows ; — "19 September, 1867.— Dear Sir.— ' Griffiths v. Dormott.' — My client, the defendant, instructs me to intimate that the plaintiff having suggested a settlement on terms to be proposed by defendant, he is willing to pay ten pounds in full, each partytopayhis own costs. This proposition "is the only one defendant will make, and is wholly without prejudice. — Yours truly, S. M. South.— Messrs Button and Reid^'] He was to attend my wife for LlO 10s altogether. Cross-examined by Mr Button — Witness understood that plaintiff was to see his wife out of danger. He paid to Mourilyan three guineas. — Mrs M'Kenzie deposed that she was a sister of Mrs Griffiths. Witness stayed with her during her confinement. On the morning that the child was born, the doctor pointed out to me a laceration. She was delivered between nine and ten o'clock, and the usual bandage was not put on till four or five o'clock that afternoon. Mrs Griffiths did not get on well. Plaintiff allowed her to get up too soon. He told witness he had trusted too much to the nurse. Cross-examined by Mr Button— TtDr Dermott attended witness two months afterwards. She met with an accident whilst travelling along the tramway. Witness was excited before the birth of her sister's child. She did not remember saying to the doctor, " Save my sister; don't mind the child." She did not remember expressing satisfaction at the manner in which the plaintiff had treated the ease. — Dr Beswick deposed

that the fee paid for attending a woman in her confinement included attendance sometimes for three days only ; sometimes for nine days. It quite depended on the practice of the place. Witness believed it was nine days here. Where something occurred, whether through accident or carelessness, the surgery and treatment ot it afterwards would be included m tne fee. Witness was of opinion that the treatment of the laceration of the skm in this case would be included in the fee. Cross-examined by Mr Button— Witness considered two guineas a fair charge to the Kanieri. Re-exammed by Mr South —The child would be attended with the mother for the first week. A fee of ten guineas for a case out of town would not be hi<*h. It would be a reasonable charge" Mr Button called Dr Young— Who stated that he had been in court during the examination of the different witnesses. A fee of £10 would not include other visits. In town witness would see a patient for a few days. The charges of medical men are lower in Victoria. A fee of two guineas is charged for a visit to St Kilda. Cross-examined by Mr South — Witness would have attended two or three times, but not till some time afterwards. That is what witness would have done. It is usual to bandage, or see that it is done, but that has nothing to do with the laceration. His Worship reserved judgment in the case till the following day. The remaining civil cases on the list were adi'ourned till the next day. The Court was then adjourned tiT the following day. (For remainder of News see 4£li Paffe.J