CHRISTCHURCH HOSPITAL LIBEL CASE.

Evening Star, Issue 6863, 29 March 1886, Page 4

CHRISTCHURCH HOSPITAL LIBEL CASE.

The trial of the case of Dr Stewart v. Roydhouse and Wakefield (proprietors of the Wellington ' Evening Press ') was concluded late on S iturday night. His Honor, in summing up, said: If a person publishes intentionally matter defamatory of another he publishes a libel, and he publishes it maliciously if ho publishes it without just cause or excuse. Generally, if a person does an act injurious to another, intentionally, he does that act maliciously. The first question, therefore, always that has to be considered in these cases is: Is the writing itself defamatory, and was it published intentionally? If so, it must be taken to have been published maliciously, unless it appears that there was just cause or excuse for publishing it. If we look at the article of which the plaintiff complains, we can see beyond doubt that it is in its nature defamatory, and that it is defamatory of the plaintiff'. Unless, therefore, it appear that there was just cause or excuse for publishing it, the plaintiff is entitled to your verdict. [His Honor read the passage of the article alleged to refer to the plaintiff.] Now, of course, though Dr Stewart's name was not mentioned here, everybody who knew anything about the case must have known that it referred to him, and the writer seems to take upon himself to assert the truth of the communication made by Dr Ned will to the Government, and the article concludes with the observation : "We purpose making further inquiry and publishing further particulars in a future issue." The article, as I havo said, is headed "Revolting Disclosures; Manslaughter or Worse." Well, it says generally "that there was bad management at the Hospital, but it_ also mentions the particular instance in which it alleges three or four times over that a patient had been killed at the Hospital by a practitioner, and the heading therefore must manifestly refer to that particular instance, as there is no other instance mentioned in the article of anyone else having been put to death at the Hospital. That the defendants honestly believed the statements in the libel to bo true, is a consideration that may weigh with you if it should come to tho question of what damages the plaintiff is entitled to recover. As to that I will refer later. You see, then, that the substantial point of the case, from the view I have put before you, i 3, What was the conduct of Dr Stewart? That touches both issues—the issue of truth and the issue of fair truth. His Honor having commented at length on the evidence, concluded thus: If you think that the article is justified, there is an end of the matter; but if you think the article is not justified, then you have to consider the question of what damages the plaintiff' is entitledto recover. The plaintiff claims L 2.000. The question of damages is one entirely for you ; and if you consider it, you will consider the nature of the charge, the position of the person charged, and the publicity which the article has received. You will, of course, look at the terms of the libel itself. It would be also open for you to take into consideration, in considering tho question of mitigation of damages, the good faith and reasonableness of the writer. If a, public journalist, after careful and painful inquiry, makes charges which he cannot substantiate, although he may be cast in damages, yet the circumstance that he has made reasonably careful inquiry should certainly influence the jury in the amount of damage which they give. You heard what Mr Wakefield said. You heard him say he wrote it with a good object, and believing what Dr Ncdwill told him. However, the fact of Mr Wakefield honestly believing what he was told is not the only matter to take into consideration. It would be proper also for you to take into consideration the reasonableness of the course which was taken. We have this : there was a public inquiry, at which evidence was taken on oath—at which Dr Nedwill was heard on one side and several other doctors on the other. That was published, and anybody might see it. Mr Wakefield says he saw it simply as one of the public, skimmed it over, and evidently took very slight pains to make himself acquainted with what took place and with the rights of the case as appearing on the conflict of evidence. What is done is that Mr Wakefield meets Dr Nedwill and Dr Nedwill shows his side of the story, and Mr Wakefield accepts that as gospel and makes but very slight additional inquiries about the matter. Mr Wakefield did not take notes of what Dr Ncdwill said to him ; bnt a short time afterwards he made notes of it, and a fortnight or so later the article was published. Ido not knowthat I need to trouble you further. I will just put three issues to you. The jury retired at 5.50 p.m. and reentered the Court shortly before 9 p.m., when His Honor intimated that as three hours had clupscil since they h:i<l retirud it was competent to accept a verdict of nine. The Foreman then gave the verdict of nine, answering the issues put to the jury as follows:

1. Is the article complained of a libel ?—-Yes. 2. Has publication been justified : («) By reason of the allegations of fact in it being tnie ?—No. (b) Uy reason of those allegations being fair comments on the conduct of the plaintiff, in Ins capacity a3 one of the Hospital staff?— No. 3. If it is not justified from either of the above reasons, what damages is the plaintiff entitled to recover ?—One shilling.

The Foreman: I have been requested by the jury to auk if it eomes within the province of the jurors to make a suggestion that an inquiry should be held? His Honor: Yes.

The Foreman: We arc unanimously desirous that the (lovernment should insist upon a rigid inquiry into the management of the Christclnirdi Hospital. His Honor: I have no doubt that the Press will take a note of that recommendation. Mr Stringer asked His Honor to certify for costs, but it was agreed that the matter of costs should be left over for argument in Chambers.

The Court rose shortly after 9 p.m