Lists (None yet)

Login to create lists


Show 1 comment
  • LorraeJ 15 Apr 2011 at 11:09
    Mr Matthew HEEB - husband of Mary Ann Thompson - grand-daugher of Mary Melia

Add New Comment

10 corrections, most recently by spellchick2 - Show corrections



Before his honour Judge Paul, with- out a jury.

Cookson v. Trout.

Dr. Boone (instructed by Mr. Harold Lilley) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Lukin (instructed by Messrs. Un mack and Fox) for the defendant.

The hearing of this case, in which Dr. Cookson claimed from Richard Trout the sum of £20 for professional services rendered to the defendant's daughter, was resumed this Morning.

Mr. Lukin applied for a nonsuit on the grounds that the services which were sued for were clearly within the provi sions of the agreement, and as such the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.

His Honour refused the nonsuit.

Mr. Lukin then said that lie would prove that, although Dr. Cookson was suing for tlie amount, Dr. Cookson (ltd not actually use tlie knife, the operatliuj being done by Dr. Fisher ; uud further, that plaintiff hud no light to charge for tlie operation under the tenus of the agreement.

Sophie A. Trout, the wife of defendant, detailed the manner In which her daugh-

ter was injured. Witness then related a ' conversation she hud with plaintiff, lu which he said that if uu operation were pei'foimed by litm there would be no charge except for another doctor to

assist In the opération. Dr. Fisher ne- j

tually used Hie knife lu tlie operation.

By Dr. Bootie : She was present during j

the whole of the operation, and was Mire Dr. Cookson did not commence the Operation.

Ellen Trout, .a daughter of the last witness, corroborated the evidence of her mother as to the conversation be- tween the plaintiff mid her mother about his making no charge except for the extra doctor to administer the chloro-


By Mr. Lukin : Dr. Cookson gave tis lils reason at thut conversation for milk- ing no charge that they were members

of the lodge.

Dr. Walter Fisher gave evidence that he was called In to assist at the Opera- tion ou defendant's daughter. Witness stalled to givo chloroform, und Dr. Cookson commenced the operation, and proceeded .about ¡is far as a third of the operation, when he asked witness to take the knife, which he did, and completed the Opera- tion. Witness did the most skilful part of the operation. Witness took the le spouslbllity so fur as his part of tlie operation was concerned.

By Dr. Boone : Witness weut lo Hie operation, with Dr. Cookson as an assist- ant and not as the principal. A reason- able charge for thut operation would be

about thirty guineas. ,

William Young, the secretary to the Brisbane Associated Friendly Societies' Medical Institute, gave evidence as to n conversation ho had willi plaintiff with lespeet to getting paid for operations. Under cross-exiimlmitlon, witness stated tliüt tlie question of lodge doctors being paid for operations had been debated by tlie Management Committee of the usso

clatlon. |

Dr. Fisher, recalled, stated in answer to n question by lils Honour, that he did not charge for his share in this opera-

tion because It was prior to the arrange- ' meut made by the doctors of tlie associa- ! lion to charge for opeiatious. This ar-j rangement had beeu mude aboul nine mon ti)s ago.

By Dr. Boone : When the doctors carno to this arrangement witness con- sidered that they wei'D entitled under tlie agreement to charge for operations.

Mr. Lukin then closed his case and nddiessed lils Honour on the terms of the agreement, and argued that tlie woiils " best medical advice and skill " meant not only a knowledge but a per- formance, and quoted dictionary defini- tions of the word " skill." He contended that these words Indicated that opera- tions were meant to be included ; nnd further, that the third clause of the agreement, stating that tlie said Dr. Reginald Cookson should not liavp the light of private pi notice, upset the plain- tiffs right to charge.

Dr. Boone addressed his Honour, and contended that the plaintiff had made no agreement not to charge for the opera-


His Honour reviewed the evidence, and said that he was of the opinion that the agreement did not bind the doctor to perform the operation for nothing, and that it was for the doctor to make an arrangement about charging for the operation. He found that the plaintiff had agreed not to charge for the first operation of twenty-five guineas, but that he was entitled to the sum of £3 .3s. for the minor operation. Judgment was therefore entered for the plaintiff for

f3 3s., with costs.

Cookson v. Jones.

- Dr. Boone (Instructed by Mr. Harold Lilley) for the plalutlff, and Mr. Lukin (Instructed by Messrs, Unmack and Fox)

for the defendant.

This was a similar case to that of Cookson r. Trput, being a claim of i"> 5s. for medical services which it was al- leged did not come within the scope of the, offices In the agreement be- tween plaintiff and the institute he en- gaged to discharge free of charge In respect of members of that Institute. The defendant was a member of the Brisbane Friendly Societies' Institute.

Dr. Cookson gave evidence In support of his claim, willett was for an operation performed by bim.

Mr. Lukin called witnesses to prove that Dr. Cookson had agreed not to charge.

After counsel had addressed the bench lils Honour gave a verdict for the plain tin.' for the amount claimed, £5 5s.

Cookson v. Gosman.

Dr. Booue (Instructed by Mr. Harold Lilley) for the plnintlfT. and Mr. Lukin (instructed by Messrs. Unmack and Fox)

for the defendant

This was a claim of fl Is. for an attendance on an ac- couchement under rule 28. of the Brisbane Asociatcd Friendly Societies' Institute,' which says : " lu the event of the medical officer being called to attend any ease other than one In which his sen-Ices had been retained that may be proved as arising from

accouchement, within nine dtij's of such neeoiiehouient, he shall be entitled to de- mand pnyuiout of oue guinea."

The defence was that Dr. Cookson was called In to attend the» children boin during the accouchement and not on the»


Dr. Cookson gave evidence of his at- tendance. In answer to his Honour, the doctor said that he did not puter the» attendance» lu his book at the» tillie».

After the defendant had given evi dpncp, lils Honour gave ti verdict for the


At the» conclusion of this case his Honour drew attention to the» necessity for these societies having their agree- ments with their doctors drawn up by some one who understood these matters, and stated that In view of such actions ns these he wondprpd it was not done».

Interpleader Case.

Julius Levy v. J. M. Lawrence and Co., defendants, and the Stniulnul Manu- facturing Company, claimants.

Mr. Ellwyn Lilley, with him Mr. O'. VV. Power (Instructed by Mr. .T. P. Fitz- gerald), appeared for the» claimant«! »nd Mr. O'Douohoe for the execution credi-


From the statement of the claimants, It appeared that Lawrence before the 10th of May, 1895, carried on business in his own behalf. On the 10th of May Lawrence made an agreement with two persons named Johnson and Carmichael to form a company, and all the goods in Lawrence's possession were handed over to the new company which was formed. Afterwards Lawrence was sued by Levy, and the goods in the possession of the Company, and with which they were carrying on business, were seized.

The execution creditor denied that Lawrence had ever parted with posses- sion of the goods, and contended that as the agreement, which was in the form of a bill of sale, was not registered, the claimants had no right to the goods.

William Johnson, one of the members of the company, gave evidence as to the taking over of the goods. The total value of the goods seized was about £150.

Mr. O'Donohoe addressed the bench in support of the execution creditor's claim.

His Honour found that the money paid into court was the property of the claim- ants, and made an order that the sum of £9 13s. be paid to the claimant, and that the execution creditor pay to the claimant the sum of £4 19s. bailiff's charges. Costs to follow the verdict on the scale of £11 12s.

Interpleader Case.

Gilbert Edward Primrose v. Jean de

Raeve (defendant). Robina Thompson de Raeve (claimant).

Mr. G. Scott (instructed by Mr. T. Bunton) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. P. Macgregor (instructed by Mr. J. V. Hellicar) for the claimant.

In this case G. E. Primrose, trading as the Helidon Spa Water Company, sued Jean de Raeve, of Adelaide-street, Brisbane, for the sum of £19 0s. 7d., and having levied the bailiff seized the goods of defendant at defendant's house. Ro- bina Thompson de Raeve, the claimant, claimed certain of the articles seized as her wedding presents, and certain others as having been bought and paid for by her out of her separate estate. The goods claimed by claimant as having been bought by her were sold to claim- ant by the Graziers' Butchering Com- pany for £12 10s., who held a bill of sale over them, given by defendant, Jean de


Robina de Raeve, the claimant, and the wife of the defendant, gave evidence as to her having bought some of the goods from the Graziers' Butchering Company. Others were her wedding presents, which she had brought over with her from Sydney.

For the defence, Mr. Scott called no witnesses, but contended that, with the exception of the wedding presents and one bedstead, the claimant had proved no title to the goods seized by the bailiff.

His Honour found that the claimant, who was a married woman, having a separate estate, bought the goods from the Graziers' Butchering Company, and that the Grazlers' Butchering Company had held a bill of sale over those goods. The money paid into court (£23 10s. 3d.) as representing the value of the goods was the property of the claimant. A

verdict was accordingly entered for the


Watt v. Wray.

Mr. Mac Donnell (Instructed by Messrs. Chambers, Bruce, and M'Nab) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Lukin (instructed by Messrs. O'Shea and O'Shea) for the defendant.

This was a case in which the plaintiff, Andrew Watt, sued Charles J. H. Wray for i!10, money lent. . The delendnnt en- tered a counter-claim for £44 2s. for pro- fessional services.

The stntement for the plaintiff was to the effect that he had lent Dr. Wray the sum of £30, nnd that he was not in- debted for the counter-claim.

The defenre» was thnt the £.10 received by defendant was a payment on account of professional services, of which £14 2s. was still owing.

Evidence was tnken on both sides. Mr. Lukin nddressed the bench, and eon tended that the defendant was entitled to the amount of the counter-claim of £14 2s.

Mr. Sine Donnell also addressed the bench, and lils Honour, In delivering judgment, said the question was whether the amount due to the doctor for medical attendance was less than, or In excess of, the sum of £30. He en- tered a verdict for the defendant, but did not allow the counter-claim.


His Honour delivered his reserved decision in the case Heeb v. Bancroft. His Honour found that 5000ft. of timber had been delivered and accepted by de- fendant, and also that all the timber was not of first-class quality. The 2000ft which were used by defendant he found were up to the standard of the terms of the contract which at 21s. amounted to £21. But in getting this 2000ft. another 1000ft. had to be cut up which ho would not allow for. He allowed 9s. on the remaining 2000ft., and entered a verdict for plaintiff for £12 19s. 7d., with costs.

Interpleader Case.

In the Interpleader case, Maryborough Newspaper Company, Limited,

Howard Freeman, defendant, IT. A. Howes, claimant, his Honour also de- livered his reserved decision, and said that the question was whether a certain

piano ivas tin ptopertv of Mis 1 leeman

No o\ idóneo had been binufcht to cou J

ti ulkt the ciidiucc that Mis I icunm

bought tin piano with hot own mono |

aud he theufon found as n fact that It was lui own monev nnd thai foie It was hoi piano also that sin sold It to Howes forf-tl He lound tint tin piano wai» tin pi opt! tv, ot Howes mil not ot tin cMiutloii etidltoi Hie pioiecd* of the salt of the pi ino vuic tin pi o putt of tin datm tut Hovvi« mil this imount less the costs of tim bnllilt s o\ pinsts lu ot iii ted to hi paid to Hovvis J he. i \nutloii cicditoi to pin the iltiun ant Hovvis tin liuouut he (Hovvis) pavs to tin huitín His Honout tin tim found that the value of tin pi ino was the pille It fetched nt the sale and not

the sum paid loi tlie sann bj i Ullin |

ant to Airs 11 mian j


Ailinn tullus lotto v Helmtih

Mm v\ lteli

Mt IYisle ippeated fut tlie ii spoil di nt and Mi I I (.loom llnstiuiticl bv Missis Kill), uni dachst) lol the tp pell mt tin di tendant In ttu low ii

i oui t

in Hits cisi> the appellant Heim ich Motvvitih appialed i"ainst tin decision of tilt tonet louit In fin ni lion hiou^ht

l^ilnst him In 11 spoudi nt fu unpaid w tges imdii sutlon 0 of the Mnsttir. and Set vants lit vvhouhv lispondent was tu udeii a voidtit of £i 10s with


Mt Puste nítido n piillinluaiv ob lection tint (lie notice of ttinl lequlicd liv section Jil of the fustic s Ut w is not ioni| lie 1 with Tlie nollei slmph stated in Intention to nppial nn 1 did not fjvo difinltilv a notlii of til ii

He cllid Unvai ^ Kestiiton

"Mt fîioom lontindi d as mi foi m w is glv I n In the Vi t and the iospondi nt w is dulv notified of tin date of tilt sittings the Act was lomplied with Iii baw d lils ippi it on the point that although tin uspondent claimed foi unpaid vingts duo foi sen lees piifoinied the ivt

dence sliowtil that tie liiillv claimed for damagis It appealed the nisliiis j,a\i dnma"cs foi two weeks dm lut, v\ Ililli n spondeiit lind not vv oi lied at all 1 his w is i,lven In lieu of nollu Hi cited <\. pirie Golton îscvv South M tites


Mi Pctskc argüid that hi could claim


His Ilonout held that lindel the Act no stieli claim totild he made He would reserve lils di clslon mi m id journmeut due to tlie teelmii til point

iiitsed In Mi Poiske

The eouit then idjoutned slue die