SLANDER ACTION

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 39, 14 August 1930, Page 11

SLANDER ACTION

NON-SUIT POINTS

QUESTIONS FOR THE JURY

■ Tho slander action brought by Dr. Richard Walter Richards, of Wellington, against the Australasian Temperanco and General Mutual Life Assurance Society, Ltd., was continued in the Supreme Court to-day, before his Honour Mr. Justice Ostler and a jury.

The plaintiff claimed £1000 damages in respect of remarks alleged to have been made to one of his patients, Mrs. D. C. M. Bell, of Brooklyn, in the presence of Mrs. V. G. Little by Nurse Blathwayt, an employee of the society. Mr. A. Gray, R.C., with him Mr. J. S. Hanna; appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. P. Bunny, with him Mr. H. F. O'Leary, for the society. ; After hearing legal argument on tho non-suit points raised during the hearing, his Honour said that the first question was whether the nurse had implied authority from the defendant to make the defamatory statement, assuming that it was, made. Sho had implied authority. only if she made the^ statement in the course and within the' scope of her employment Certainly it was made in tho course of her employment. No lay person was bette> qualified to appreciate what was being done by a doctor than a nurse of the kind in the present case, and in his Honour's opinion it was within tho scope of her employment to speak the words she was alleged to ha.ye used. On the question of privilege, his Honour said that in his opinion the occasion was privileged almost for the same reason that it was within the scope of hor employment. It would be a monstrous thing if such a nurse, when she said that the health of a person was suffering through the neglect of a medical man, could not make such a statement bona fide and Without malice without rendering herself liable to an action for slander. Another question was whether the fact that the words had been uttered, assuming that they were uttered, in the presence of a person having no common interest in-the subject matter destroyed tho privilege of'the occasion. In his Honour's opinion, it did not, provided tBo nurse was acting bona fide and without malice. That seemed to be a question for the jury. . •' NURSE'S DENIAL. His Honour said that in nearly all cases where qualified privilege was claimed the words complained of were admitted to /have been used,- and the defendant pleaded that they, had been spoken without mailee and on a privileged occasion. In the present case the nurse denied having used the words or any like them. That, of course, would bn tho first question of fact for the jur- to determine. If they accepted her evidence on that point? the action necessarily failed. If, however, they decided that the words had been uttered they would have to consider whether the words; wero used bona fido and without malice. THE ISSUES. ' The. following issues were1 agreed upon for submission to the jury:— (1) Wero tho words alleged in the statement of claim or similar words spoken by the nurse? (2) Wero tho words spoken by the nurse to Mrs. Bell and Mrs. Little defamatory of the plaintiff? ' (3) If so, was the nurse, when sho spoke those words in the presence of Mrs. Little, acting bona fido or was sho actuated by malice? >

(4), If the words spoken by the nurse were defamatory of the • plaintiff, was she, in. speaking those words to Mrs. Bell, actuated by malice-? ~..;, . (5) 'What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover from the defendant? (Proceeding.) Tho report of yesterday's proceedings appears,on page 15.