SUIT AGAINST DOCTOR

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 82, 7 April 1938, Page 20

SUIT AGAINST DOCTOR

CLAIM FOR £475

DEFENDANT IN BOX

(By Telegraph—Press Association.)

AUCKLAND, April 6.

The hearing of the claim by Isabella Jane Paddock,- formerly matron of the Waihi Hospital, against Dr. Archibald Jenkins, its medical superintendent, for £475 for alleged libel and slander, was continued in the Supreme Court today. ' In cross-examination, Jenkins said he had supported the matron against charges; made by Robinson and other members of the board. The matron continued dispensing up to the end. He did not know of any mistakes she had made in dispensing, apart from the • atrophine incident. He would not I say ■ she ,was an excellent dispenser, | and he had frequently' to help her. When two nurses were at the surf club, ball, the matron should have been on duty at the hospital. Witness had repeatedly told the matron that he ■wanted only trained staff in charge at night, but she continued to have untrained nurses in charge. Witness said four per cent, of atrophine would have been an overdose, and the matron should have questioned him about it.

Mr. Justice Fair said if it appeared that a mistake might have been made in a prescription, it was only common sense that the dispenser should refer it again to the person responsible.'

Witness said he attributed the matron's mistake with atrophine to lack of knowledge. His charge was j that the matron did not understand the difference between J per cent, and 4 per cent., and then tried to lie her way out of it instead of admitting it. He denied that the matron told him that she knew the bottle .contained I only i per cent. The matron really [ came into the operating theatre to learn her work. Mr. Fiteherbert (for the defendant): 'Is it not true that you are a very quarrelsome man? 1 Witness: Most decidedly not. Witness denied that it had been a serious breach of duty on his part to go to Wanganui when he did. He had obtained permission, and was exonerated by the board. He did not agree that the matron was a very tactful woman and had tried to bring about peace and harmony in the hospital. He -had pontinually to protect himself and the hospital and staff from the attacks of three members of the board.

The cross-examination was not concluded when the Cour* adjourned.'