The Hospital Telephone.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 608, 16 May 1891, Page 3

The Hospital Telephone.

TRUSTEES AND MEDICAL OFFICER. A case of interest to the contributors to the Hospital was heard by Mr Booth on Thursday, The Trustees sued Dr Pollen for £9 cost of removing the telephone from the late residence of Dr Pollen to that of Dr Innes. Mr R. N. Jones appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr DeLautour for defendant. Witnesses were ordered out of Court. In opening the case Mr Jonee said the Trustees felt sorry to have to bring the case into the Court, and even up to the last moment they thought the defendant might have had it settled. He had been applied to several times on the matter, but had not the courtesy to reply -he had simply ignored the letters. It would be clearly shown that he had undertaken to pay, and the only reason be could give for refusal was a plea of discourtesy on the part of the Trustees. That discourtesy appeared to consist in a refusal to pay a balance [of his salary until certain missing instruments that were in his charge were accounted for. Even if it were held there was no claim, it was a case in which the equity and good conscience privilege should be availed of, especially when the promise was made to the Trustees of a charitable institution. Messrs McKay (Secretary), Tucker (Chairman), Watson, Lucas, and Hepburn (Trustees) gave evidence, which went to show that defendant had, at a meeting of the Trustees—when the doctor mentioned that he was going to Wellington, and a discussion was started by Mr Lucas asking what he was prepared to do about the matter of the telephone—undertkaken to pay the cost of removal, there being no stipulation of any kind that the Trustees should appoint Dr Pollen’s locum tenens as his successor to the practice. All the Trustees except Captain Tucker (who did not pretend to be able to say) considered that leave would not have been granted if defendant bad not promised to pay the cost of removing the telephone if necessary. They were aware of no discourtesy to Dr Pollen. Dr Johnston had been given an opportunity to apply for the position, as he bad done, though unsuccessfully. Dr Pollen’s salary was £l5O a year: ft had been proposed to reduce it before he left, and it was reduced before the new appointment was made. Dr Innes had expressed his willingness to pay £5 on behalf of Dr Pollen towards the Cost of removal, so as to save trouble. Mr Ess wick had unofficially said he thought the cost would be about £4, but it came to £9 2s. In cross-examination Mr Lucas eaid there was no friction between him and defendant—he certainly had not accused Dr Pullen of stealing instruments; did hot think he should be ssked a question like that, Dr Pollen had been told that soma of a set of instruments costing £4O, and which he had originally obtained without authority, were missing, and as they were in Dr Pollen’s Charge, it was thought hs was responsible. A letter was first sent, civilly asking him if he knew anything about the missing instru? meats, and a harsh letter subsequently came, declining further correspondence with the Trustees. He was not in the habit of talking freely about these matters in the street. It was proposed to reduce the salary to £lOO, and witness acquiesced in its being fixed at £l-25.

In opening the defence Mr DaLautour said it was with extreme regret that the case was defended. All who knew Dr Pollen would know that the £ a. d question never weighed with him, but he was aggrieved that after serving the institution for fourteen years, really creating it and raising it to the position of premier institution of its size in the colony—as anyone canid see by the Inspector’s reports—and working at a salary only amounting to bal£ of what was paid in other places, that he should be harassed, and every effort made when he was leaving the district to improve bis position, by these Trustees who for the time being occupied the power ; that there should be cart abroad inuendoes as to improper conduct in regard to some instruments, and suggestions that he was urging this telephone work to be completed to his place so that hs could increase the selling value of his practice, These inuendoes were not creditable to those who cast them abroad, and it was no wonder that Dr Pollen spoke hastily at the meeting, but the condition he then made was clear, and was not at all inconsistent with the evidence now given. They well knew from the custom in such districts that the Doctor had a peifect right to consider the Hoepital practice, as he would that of the Oddfellows or any other Lodge, should be respected as a substantial portion of his capital, and that it should not be taken gway recklessly by those in power, tg give to some pan favored with friends and relations. What was done the minute Dr Pollen went was to reduce the salary, and Dr Johnston was immediately discarded the moment the three months were up, although he had given unqualified satisfaction. On the facts Dr Pollen felt justified in defending the action. The defence would be that the agreement alleged was not proven, that if a guarantee it was not in writing, that if it was an agreement there was no consideration to support it. If the action had been brought for the original pos) o' the tele; hone there might be something in it, but there could be no consideration in regard to the .removal of the telephone ; the only thing the Trustees could have done would be to refuse leave of absence. The defendant’s evidence, taken in Wellington, was read. The following is the gist:—My reason for refusing to pay is that immediately on my removal they cut down the salary of Medical Officer, and did not propose pry successor. The conditions on which I undertook to pay have not been Complied with. Mr Jellicoe : What were the conditions ?-» That they should elect my successor, if a suitable man, and if they thought I was to blame for not stopping the removal of the telephone—then I would consider myself liable to pay. .Subject to these conditions being complied with you admit your liability to pay ? -—No,! don’t even do that, as I consider I have been released from any moral obligation by the action cf the Trustees. Stare the manner in which you have been released ?—By the Secretary writing stating Dr Innes had agreed to pay, and that the cost would only be £5; by the reduction of the salary, which might have had the effect of preventing my successor from applying for the post; by the general discourteous Conduct of the Trustees since my denarture from Gisborne; by the fact of the Trustees not having the courtesy to propose Dr Johnston when he applied for the post. Were you in negotiation for the appointment which you afterwards received, at the time the connection with the telephone was commenced ?—I had been for a yeqr pre- ■ Vidus ; it was most’ undecidedl had left the matter in some person’s hands in Wellington to act for me; I might hare had a telegram qt any time ordering me away. I bad advocated the telephone connection for years. Did yon not during the month immediately preceding the work being commenced repeatedly urge the connection ?—I can’t say, but I won’t deny it, At the time you attended the meeting on the 2nd July, had the Trustees accepted your resignation and proposal P—J don’t recollect; I donU even remember toe letter being read; I remember jiome discussion on the letter taking place. I don't remember Mr Lucas saying in the discnasion, '■ What about the telephone ?” J. can’t say he old not. I did not say in reply that it might appear uniuetifiable in me to allow tho Truitses to go on'with tpe erection of the telephone whilst I was privately making arrangements for my removal, I can’t swear I did not, because 4do ’pot recollect. Idotfit recollect whether | did not go on to say that my arrangements were of such a nature that I could not, with justice to myself, have divulged anything concerning them earlier. I don’t recollect saying that Dr Barker would take up his residence in the house with which the telephone was connected, so that it would be serviceable for the next three months. ‘ Did you not say that if at the end of the three months it became necessary to remove the telephone by reason of your gt the hospital not being the ene living in your house, you would pay tna costs of its removal to the premises of the appointed, Doctor P—l said that, With conditions as I have already statedr

Were you not informed that your resignation would be accepted after you had made this statement ?—I took it as a matter of course that my resignation would be accepted. If there were other reasons than those you mention in this endorsement (letter produced), why did you not say so ?—I did not consider them necessary. I cannot take any exception to tbe items of claim, as I know nothing about them. Mr DeLautour then analysed the evidence, contending that while each witness gave a different version as to the actual words used, the average testimony upheld the defendant’s ease. It was only, he said, where they had Trustees actuated by some petty grievance or cliquism that the ordinary rule as to a successor in such a ease was departed from. The fact that they had not asked Dr Innes to pay though they knew he was willing to give £5, was sufficient to show the spirit in the matter.

Mr Jones replied, repeating that they on their part regretted to have to bring the case. When a professional man made a promise it was expected that fie would keep his word, and they held that he should be bound by it. The evidence was very clear, if not as to the actual words used, at least as to the substance of those words. Defendant himself admitted the promise, though he stated that he had made conditions which all witnesses denied, and which as representatives of the public they would not be justified in accepting. The Trustees were Messrs A. Brown, Coleman, E. F. Harris, Nolan, Tucker, Tuohy, Lucas, Hepburn, and Watson. Were those gentle men, he would ask anyone, likely to try and harass any individual ? The thing was absurd. They did no doubt expect a man to keep his promise. No doubt Dr Innes had offered to pay £5 on behalf of Dr Pollen, but if they had accepted that they would have relieved Dr Pollen of his promise, Taking the points raised: No agreement proven. The evidence was so clear as to do away with that point. The reduction of salary had nothing to do with the matter. As the Trustees felt they could not continue paying such a good salary, it had been reduced. There was no discourtesy of any kind shown; certainly the Trustees had always paid Dr Pollen’s salary—they had not repudiated their liability. The next point—that no guarantee was given, because it was not in writing. Of course there was no guarantee. Dr Innea’ offer, if accepted, would be as a guarantee, but Dr Pollen had acknowledged himself as the original debtor, and therefore was not treated as a guarantor. Then as to there being no consideration : He submitted there was ample consideration, but the adequacy of tho consideration did not matter. The Court had no means of scrutinising as to adequacy, tbe law (quoting section) being plain that if parties entered into such bargains they must abide by them. If Dr Polien Sad not gone to Welling, ton, the practice which he had been seeking for twelve months would have slipped out of his hands; if hs had gone in spite of the Trustees he would have to forfeit three months’salary. [Mr DeLautour; Thera is no evidence that he would have been a loser if he had remained for the term of notice.] But it was the logical conclusion, by which the Court, he hoped, would be guided. As to those instruments of which so much had been made ; if defendant had replied in a straightforward way, saying ha had not got them, there would have been no further trouble over the matter. He might say a good deal on this subject, but as it was a matter outside the case it was not right for him to allude to it. The Trustees had always treated Dr Pollen fairly, had paid his salary without fail, had placed no obstacle in his way, and had given the successor to his practice (though a stranger) an equal right with other applicants for the position of Medical Officer, and had considered Dr Pollen so far aS they could consistently with their duty to the public. The telephone was erected at his suggestion and they expected him to fulfil bis promise to pay the cost of removal, They had both a moral and legal right in their claim, but it the technical grounds were considered to be against the plaintiffs, he submitted that the case was one in which His Worship should give judgment on equity and good conscience, and hold that a professional man making such a promise to a charitable body should he held to his t?ord. His Worship said it was a great pity the case was brought into Court, The Gisborne Hospital was a popular institution deservedly patronised by all classes, It had fortunately always been controlled by a capable and energetic Board of Trustees, who seemed to have managed it with satisfaction to all. Dr Pollen on his part had also done his duty well, and no complaint had ever been made, With regard to the particular transaction that gave rise to (his pgso, each Trustee examined was clear qn the pqlnt that the promise had been made, and they were unaware of any condition attached—in fact, the appointment being one of election year by year, they could not undertake to give the position to Dr Pollenis successor in hie ordinary practice. He would overrule the legal points raised, and give judgment on the equity of the case—that a promise had been made and received in good faith by the Trustees, acting on behalf of the public. Judgment for plaintiff, Mr DeLautour: Then we cannot appeal ? Mr Booth: No. posts to the extent of £3 5s were allowed, Mr Jones asked that an allowance be made to the witnesses, Mr Booth said he did not suppose they would ask for expenses, Mr Jones eaid it would only ba with the intention of handing it over to the Hospital funds. The application was not pressed further.