Christchurch Hospital Scandal.

Auckland Star, Volume XVII, Issue 78, 27 March 1886, Page 8

Christchurch Hospital Scandal.

Tbe Libel Suit.

(BY TULKUKAI'II-rBIiSS ASSOCIATION.)

Dunedin, Friday. In the libel case, Stewart v, Roydhonse and another, Dr. Prins was the only witness today called for the plaintiff. The Attorney-General opened the case frfif ! the defendants. He said tho issue was not whether Dr. Stewart had been guilty ot manslaughter or not. This was not an ordinary caso, where a newspaper proprietor j wrote about a man in a private position, and 1 all that the defendants had to show was that they were discussing a public matter, and that thoir comments were reasonable and fair comments on what had been disclosed to the public about the management of a public institution. In the case of Taylor and Keen, wherein the managemont of an hotel had been criticised, tho Chief Justice of South Australia ruled that, in order to find that the article in question was written maliciously, they would havo to find that it was untruthful, and that it contained statements which he did riot honestly believe to bo true, or that these statements had beon made reckleesly and without proper inquiry. In this oaso, even ft the jury came to the conclusion that the statements in the article were nob true, that would not onable thefil to give a verdict for the plaintiff. They had to go a 3tep further. The libel must be falsely;and maliciously made; and, therefore, before they could find a verdict for the plaintiff, they must come to tho conclusion that the writer of the article was actuated by malice against Dr. Stowart. If they came to the conclusion that bo was not actuated by malice, but Wrote it honestly, believing it to be true, it would be thoir duty to find that the defendants wero entitled to a verdict. As a matter of fact, the article was written by Mr Wakefield, who would bo placed in the box. What were the facts? Had he before bim when he sat down to pen the article an account of operation which was of a! very rare nature, and had been described as "Unsurgical, and repulsive and barbarous.''' It was performed without a consultation in defiance of the written rules of the Hospital. The operation had been suggested by Drs. Turnbull and Prins, and yet they sat on tho board of inquiry, and the inquiry was closed in the face of Dr. Nedwill, wanting tocallforfurthorovidence. It was unquestionable that the particular operation performed was sore, hazardous, and speculative. Not a single medical man had been produced who hud seen it performed. As to tho manner in which the operation had been carried out, they had the patent fact that the man died; and why, Dr Stewart did not know. There was the further fact that cither the certificate of death was false or the evidence given at tho inquiry was. Ho would ask the jury whether, looking at all tho facts that had come out, Mr YVakefield was guilty of any malice whatever in showing up these abuses he had in connection with the Christchurch Hospital. Dr. Coughtrey, by aid of diagrams, described the oporation, and stated that he would havo informed his assistant of the step ho intended to take in an oporation. Dr. Patrick stated that years ago when at home lie had a course of anatomy, and during that timo had not seen a similar operation to that performance by Dr. Stewart.

Mr Wakefield deposed that when the article waa written he did not know Dr. Stewart. He had no feeling against him. Dr. Nodwill had nothing to do with the article. His only object was to obtain an inquiry as to whether it was true, and whether thero was need for hospital reform. In cross-examination he stated that the first objection to the article came from the Medical Society. He did not think it necessary to 6ee the persons mentioned in the correspondence, flewentaway fromMrßobthnm's house, where Dr, Nodwill read the correspondence, without any idea of writing an article, aud it was not till ho returnod to Christchurch the second time that ho decided ou writing it. Soeing tho result o£ the inquiry, and seeing that Dr. Nodwill had petitioned tho Colonial Secretary, ho did not think it necessary to inquire as to tho truth of his information, because he looked upon Dr. Nedwill as an honourable man. He was disinterested in his action, and was simply endeavouring to get an independent inquiry to supplement an inquiry which was worthless.

Mr R. Beetham. R.M., deposod that he was present on the ocossion when Dr Nedwill read the lottor to Mr Wakefield and himself. He afterwards had a conversation with Mr Wakefield about this matter. He beliovod he used the words that " tho inquiry was a perfect farce." Dr. Nodwill was tho next witness. He stated that ho had never witnessed the operation called the radical euro for hernia, but had himself performed an operation for strangulated hernia. The radical cure was by no means common, and was attended with danger. Ifo then described tho operation as porformed by Dr. Stewart. At its (.inclusion he suggested the use of tho clamp, as he was suro hemorrhage would return, When he spoko to Mr Wakefield, he simply desired to havo a matter of public interest brought forward in tho House, Mr Wakefield at tho time not being connected with a nowspaper. In demanding an inquiry ho was acting in tho public interest. He did not consider tbe operation was carefully performed. The cross-exami-nation of Dr. Nedwill will take place tomorrow, and he is expected to be the last witness for tho defence.