The Sun.
London, England, 1856-03-26 00:00:00

LA TV INTELLIGENCE.--March 25.

(Before A. Ryland, E,q., and a Jury.)
TODD V. HATTON.-IMPORTANT TO PHYSICIANS AND

SURGEONS.
The plaintiff in this action is a member of the College
of Physicians of Edinburgh and a member of the College
of Surgeons of London, and sought to recover the sum of
16/., the balance of an account for medical attendance
.nd medicines supplied to defendant's wife and daughter.
Mr. Buchanan, Basinghall-street, said that he appeared
the plaintiff, and had in the first instance to apply to
be learned judge to amend the plaint and add a claim
~.or money paid and laid out for the defendant's use.
His Honour asked what power he bad to do so ?
Mr. Buchanan said it was given under the 57th sec-
tion of the City Small Debts Act.
Mr. Codd (counsel for the defendant) objected, and
said that the application was premature, and it could not
be entertained unless evidence had been given, when, if
any dispute arose, the learned judge might exercise his
discretion.
Mr. Buchanan said that the reason he applied now was
because he understood that the defence would be that
the plaintiff was not a licentiate of the Company of Apo-
thecaries, and therefore could not recover for attendance
and medicine, and he must therefore rely upon. a count
for money laid out in the purchase of drugs, &c.
• His Honour said that such an objection ought to be
taken in lirnine.
Mr. Codd said he would do so, but Mr. Buchanan had
not opened his case, even by name.
His Honour considered that the plaint as it at present
stood would meet the case.
Mr. Buchanan then stated the case, from which it ap-
peared that plaintiff had attended defendant's family
for many years, and for the last attendances his bill
amounted to 201. 45., of which he admitted he bad re-
ceived 41. 9s. 6d. He (Mr. Buchanan) was bound to
admit that plaintiff, not being a licentiate of the Apothe-
caries' Company, was not entitled to sue for attendance
and for medicines ; he should not contend to recover for
mere than the disbursements, and some further amount
for the trouble of going to the druggist's to order the
drugs, &c.
The plaintiff was called and proved the attendances.
He had paid 51. lls. for drugs, &c., for defendant's wife,
and 41. 6s. ld. for what was supplied to his daughter.
He was in the habit of going to the chemist's and having
the prescriptions made up, and either taking them or
sending them to defendant's.
In cross-examination he said he was a surgeon and a
member of the College of Physicians of Edinburgh, and
described himself as an M.D. He was not a licentiate
of the Apothecaries' Company. He attended Mrs. and
Miss Hatton as a physician, and he had told defendant
he would not charge for writing his prescriptions.
Mr. Codd contended that the plaintiff must be non-
suited, fur he was not an apothecary,-and could not sue
in his character of physician, and cited the ease of
" Veitch " (1 Car, and March, 162.)
Mr. Buchanan submitted that when plaintiff left his
patients his character as physician ceased, and that he
was entitled to be paid for goods supplied.
His Honour said that it was quite clear that plaintiff
could not recover ast a physician, as he had described
himself, which be had no earthly right to do in this
country. As to the claim for the goods sold there was
no evidence that the defendant had ever given an autho-
ty for them to be supplied. To enable the plaintiff to
zcover, he must show a specific authority.
Mr. Buchanan elected to be nonscited.