FAMOUS CASE CITED.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 123, 26 May 1928, Page 12

FAMOUS CASE CITED.

IN DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS.

ADMISSIBILITY OF MEDICAL EVIDENCE.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE. ' • /

The question of the privilege of medical practitioners in legal actions—a question which has been dealt with on previous occasions in many countries, and which has often been of a contentious character —arose in a case in which Mr. Justice Blair's written judgment was given to-day in the Supreme Court.

A husband had petitioned against his wife for a decree nisi on the ground of imsconduct. The doctor called by counsel for petitioner stated that he was not prepared to give evidence save by the direction of the Cdurt. The woman had come to him to be medically examined.

Giving judgment, his Honor remarked: "■The law is clear enough that a medical man's evidence is admissible as to his own observations, but he cannot speak as to anything that the patient has communicated to him."

After touching on the facts of the case, his Honor went on to say that the rule of law was that neither a husband nor a wife was permitted to give evidence of non-intercourse after marriage to illegitimise a child born in wedlock. This applied to proceedings instituted in consequence of misconduct, and was not affected by the law, which made the parties to such proceedings, and the husbands and wives of such parties, competent witnesses.

His Honor, however, stated that, in the event of a birth which had been expected, but which, for natural reasons, did not take place, such evidence would be admissible. The general rule, as laid down by Lord Birkenhead, as Lord Chancellor, when the case of Russell v. Russell came, on appeal, before the House of Lords, did not apply under the circumstances mentioned.

His Honor granted the husband a decree nisi.