Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

26 articles on this Page

- BRABAZON EMPLOYMENT SOCIETY.…

MODERN NATIONS. .

[No title]

Advertising

MARQUIS OF ANGLESEY. .

--------------ELLESMERE PORT'S…

WELSH REVOLT. .

-'----''--_..__.._._-__ CREWE…

[No title]

FLINT COUNTY COURT .

-----------_----h__---------CHEESE…

MR. STANLEY A HOME RULER.…

THE NESTON SCANDAL. __n-+--

- CHESTER DISTRICT NURSING…

ICORRESPONDENCE.

THE CHESTER DIOCESAN CONFERENCE.

RADICALS AND THE RAND.

"VIVISECTION" DEFENDED.

[No title]

ACTION AGAINST DR. CUFFE.…

News
Cite
Share

ACTION AGAINST DR. CUFFE. MEDICAL ASSOCIATION GET DAMAGES. COUNTY COURT JUDGMENT. At Chester County Court, otn Thursday, his Honour ga.,e judgment in a remarkable action heard soruo uiriie ago. The puaintiffs were the trustees of tthe Chester Friendly Societies' Medi- cal A..d Association, and the action was brought agaiiist D.. Cufl'e, the association's late medical oliioor, to' oolain- an injunction restraining de- fendant. from Ciurying on private practice within five iniies or tiie eir-y of Chester for a period tf twelvo months from tlio 31st of May, 1905. The plamtiifs iu: ii.er sought payment of a penalty of £ 100, oi* suc.ii otiietr sum the Court might con- sider tiio piauiiiAs entitled to, as damages for breach of u^nouiiie<nt. His Honour said on the 31st of May this year, according to p^iiutis, defendant ceased to be medical officer of the society, and in violation of Ins agrconuruS.-•-commenced pmnaie practice within trio p.et>c.) bcci iiiiiit and time. That the defend- aut. had ul¡o",¡,c4 11.. private practice and was still so doing wnfun tiie prescribed area and within the pc r ;od 0; iwcivo months was not disputed. The sul)sanLa- question resting between the par- ties was as to VviictiioT tliere ever was such an agreement M t..( plaintiffs alleged. Unfortu- nately, iio agreement- was now to be found. Whotiier it ever existed, and if so what it con- tained, and what had become of it wore matters of controversy. P.arntiff was engaged as medical officer by a resolution of the association on the 1st Feb., lb-00, and he ente.red upon his duties im- mediately aftei wards. A certified copy of the nncs was sent by the then secretary, Mr. Harris; to a fiim who acted as medical agents between the par tie. for tine purpose of their being shewn. to the candidates. There was no proof however, that the rules had ever leached the hands of the defendant. It was somewhat difficult to imagine that any candidate would have undertaken the post without, a knowledge of the rules defining his position, duties and emoluments; but the defendant averred that he never received a copy of the ruies from anyone. However that might be.. the main question involved was whether the defendant signed an agieemeint containing a clauso which prohibited him under a penalty from private practice Within, the limits of time and place. H,¡ Honour piooeeded to review at con- siderable length the evidence for the plaintiffs. Harris swore that a fair oopy of the agreement was read at a meeting and signed by the throe trustees and the defendant. Thomas Seonoe &aid lie was present, at. that meeting and heard (the agreement lead over by Hairis, and that he and trie other trustees and Dr. Cuffe signed it. There were, in fact., throe witnesses who proved the signing of the agreement by Dr. Cuffe on the 31st IX-c., 1900. There was other evidence which strongly confirmed the existence of the agree- ment Mr. Candy, the secretary who suc- ceeded Harris in 1901, said he saw the agree- ment, which consisted of four pages of closely- written manuscript and contained the clause re- ferred to. The agreement was missed in March last after Dr. Cuffe had had notice. Defendant's case was that nothing was said- to him about not pract-sing, and that, no agreement was ever signed by him or read over to him, that no refer- ence was made to rules, and that he did not know there were any. He further stated that only one question was put to him at the meeting, and that was as to when he would begin work. For the defendant a Mr. Pritchard (one of the trustees in 1900) said he did not remember any agreement, and had never seen one with Dr. Cuffe. He (his Honour) could come to no other conclusion than that there was an agreement, that it contained a provision as to not practising, and that it was signed by the trustees and Dr. Ouffe. The evi- dence of Gandy, if not true, must be almost incomprehensible; and if it was reliable, as he believed it was, it was strongly corroborative of the plaintiffs' case. It was not necessary for him to say anything with reference to the oir- cumstances connected wit.h the loss of the agree- ment. He preferred to think that possibly it had been lost, without making a serious allega- tion against anybody; and he preferred to think that Dr. Cuffe's statement that he clod not reool- leot signing any agreement was more likely to be correct than his stronger allegation that he never signed it. The evidence that he did sign the agreement was impossible to resist. With respect to the legal Question raised by the de- fence, his answer was that the agreement did not contain a new clause, and was s.mply the formal lo statement of the conditions previously agreed upon. Judgment must be for the plaintiffs, who elected to take damages and forego the injunc- tion. The only remaining question was whether the judgment was to be entered for a penalty of £100. or for the actual damage sustained up to the time of the action-— £ 35. The amount of the penalty might well be considered reasonable, and he was therefore bound to enter judgment for. the plaintiffs for the sum of £100.

--__------LIGHTING-UP TABLE.…

CHESTER INFIRMARY. 6

Family Notices

ACKNOWLEDGMENT.

Advertising

[No title]