MATRON'S CLAIM.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 85, 11 April 1938, Page 8

MATRON'S CLAIM.

SLANDER ALLEGED.

WAIHI HOSPITAL CASE

COUNSEL ADDRESS COURT

The linal stapes in the action in which Tsalvel Jane Paddock, formerly matron ;of the Wait,] Hospital, claims .C 47-1 from Dr. Archibald .Tenkins, formerly medical superintendent of the hospital, fur alleged blander were, reached to-day when counsel for plaintiff and defendant addressed the Court. The action was heard by Mr. Justice Fair, plaintiff being represented by .Mr. P. B. Fitzherbert an<l the doctor by Mr. Xewbery. Case for Plaintiff. In addressing the Court on behalf of the plaintiff Mr. Fitzherbert put forward nine submissions, which he dealt with at length, and quoted authorities in support of his contention that the statements complained of by the plaintiff concerning her were made by Dr. Jenkins on ociasions which did not enjoy qualified privilege. Xot only had Dr. Jenkins made the statements, but he had not even pleaded justification, and there scorned fo be no doubt that where a person made a statement knowing it to be untrue he could properly be described ns a malicious person. Xo defence of qualified privilege could excuse propagated falsehood, and counsel submitted that was the position in the J present case.

Mr. Fitzherbcrt criticised the evidence of the defendant and contended that the doctor had propagated the full gravamen of the falsehood alleged in his letter to the board in July of last year. He had not attempted to mitigate the charges ho made against the matron, but. on the other hand, had sought to make other chargae. Counsel submitted that the whole of the attitude of the doctor in the witness box was one of malice towards the matron. The defendant had charged the matron wifch preparing a highly dangerous drug despite the fact that on August 11 he knew she had done nothing of the kind. Counsel said the Court had to take the obvious meaning to words used, and every item had to be carefully weighed to show the state of mind of the doctor on the various occasions mentioned.

Counsel's main submission concerned the. letter to the board of July 17 in which Dr. Jenkins complained that the matron had prepared a 4 per cent solution of atrophine when he had instructed her to prepare \ per cent solution. It was subsequently learned that the solution was i per cent, but though Dr. Jenkins knew this on August 11 he allowed the falsehood to continue on September 21, when the complaint was again before the board, and, in fact, had made no attempt to mitigate the false charge right up to the present. ■ Mr. Fitzherbert submitted that the evidence showed distinct malice on the part of the doctor towards the matron from July last. Malice Denied. Mr. Newbery, for the defendant, said it was absurd to contend that the doctor, when he knew the analysis of the atrophine solution was J per cent and not 4 per cent as the matron had labelled the bottle, an analysis which he accepted, still contended that the solution was 4 per cent. What the doctor held was that the matron did not realise that a 4 per cent atrophine solution was highly dangerous. Counsel submitted that when the doctor considered the matron was inefficient it was his duty to the board, and in the interests of the hospital and the patients, to make the reports he did. The complaints were made on privileged occasions and the doctor had not shown malice toward the matron.