ALLEGED LIBEL AND SLANDER

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 162, 5 April 1938, Page 15

ALLEGED LIBEL AND SLANDER

Claim By Former Matron Of Waihi Hospital SUIT AGAINST MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT By Telegraph—Press Association. Auckland, April 4. A claim for £475 for alleged libel and slander was brought against Dr. Archibald Jenkins, medical superintendent of the Waihi Hospital, by Isabella Jane Paddock, formerly matron of the Waihi Hospital, in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Fair. Mr. Fitzherbert represented plaintiff, and Mr. Newbery appeared for defendant.

In plaintiff’s statement of claim it was alleged that on July 13, 1937, defendant falsely and maliciously wrote or spoke to members of the Waihi Hospital Board aifd others that the matron seemed quite unable to acquire the requisite nursing standard or properly to undertake the management and discipline of the institution. He also said, so it was claimed, that in the theatre the matron did not appear tO' appreciate the meaning of the ternys “aseptic" and “sterile,” and by her actions on three occasions rendered certain of the operations unsterile by mishandling instruments and operators, thus delaying operations. Although the superintendent had repeatedly asked her to familiarise herself with theatre instruments, she still showed almost entire ignorance of them and delayed operations when called upon to supply certain instruments. It was alleged that defendant had said that plaintiff had never troubled to familiarise herself with the operation of sterilisers. She had made mistakes and failed to carry out instructions in connection with the provision of requirements in certain X-ray cases which caused delay and inconvenience to both patients and operators and, in a recent maternity case, the medical superintendent found, on being called to the hospital, that the whole of the trained staff, including the matron, w'ere attending a surf club ball and the husband of the patient had to be sent for the matron. On or about July 17, alleged plaintiff, dtfendant wrote to the chairman of the Waihi Hospital Board that he wished “to draw his attention to two further developments which make it urgently necessary, for the safety of patients, to relieve the matron of her dirties without any further delay. . . .” The defence ■ pleaded privilege and claimed that the statements were not defamatory. Plaintiff claimed that privilege was destroyed by a motive of malice.

In evidence plaintiff detailed her experience in England and New Zealand before she went to Waihi on October 12, 1935. Dr. Jenkins arrived about November 24, 1935, and she got on with him quite well. On May 27, 1936, a senior sister, Edith Black, and a junior sister, May Black, came to the hospital. At this stage plaintiff’s evidence was interrupted by consent.

Walter Charles Collier, secretary of the Waihi Hospital Board until its amalgamation with the ’ Thames Hospital Board, said that on March 10, 1036, the board expressed its appreciation of the work of Dr. Jenkins. Matron Paddock and other members of the staff. From a minute on July 13, 1937, witness read an entry containing some of the. allegations complained of by plaintiff. The entry was made from a verbal report by Dr. Jenkins that was typed in the office next day and approved by Dr. Jenkins. A sub-committee of two was set up to report to the board. Later the matron was asked to send in her resignation for consideration and the board did not accept it. In August both Dr. Jenkins and the matron attended a special meeting of the board whe> Dr. Jenkins described all his complaints and the matron replied to them. An application for a departmental inquiry was ipatle but declined. A further meeting was held on September 21, witness said, and a resolution dismissing the matron was carried on the chairman’s easting vote after a resolution to dismiss Dr. Jenkins had been lost on the chairman’s casting vote. Dr. Jenkins was also instructed to give the matron the courtesy her position called for.- As a result of an order for medicine, said witness, defendant said to witness that so far as he was concerned the matron did not exist, either as a nurse or in the dispensary. At board meetings Dr. Jenkins was more or less hostile throughout to the matron and he lost his temper.

To Mr. Newbery, witness said there were private references at board meetings to a suggestion that the matron was going to resign, even if her resignation was refused. Witness might have . expressed the opinion that the matron was not of a sufficient standard to control the institution. He had come to this opinion wheidtfche was first appointed because she had been 16 years away from active nursing service. Her appointment was not approved by the Health Department for this reason. Dr. Jenkins was of a very positive type, said witness. When he criticised the matron he did so completely and when he defended her he did so properly. Fie was not vindictive. Complaints about the matron’s inability to run the staff had been made by board members, witness said, and there had been verbal complaints by members of the staff of the matron’s conduct. Such difficulties were more or less continuous throughout the matron’s term and the board’s attitude might fairly be summed up that if it got rid of the matron, since it had experienced difficulty in getting her, it would find it difficult to get another matron. A departmental inquiry was suggested by defendant. Witness said Dr. Jenkins always had the welfare of the hospital at heart. The case was adjourned.