APPEAL COURT.
ADMISSIBILITY OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS. [Fee United Press Associvtxon.] WELLINGTON, August I. The, case Lucena v. the National Mutual Life Association of Australia is being hoard to-day. The case raises some interesting questions as to what extent communications made hr a doctor to a patient or a patient to, a doctor in the course of consultation are privileged from disclosure in courts of law. The question turns on the construction of section 8 (3) of The Evidence Act, 1908. The defendant company tendered evidence, which was objected to by plaintiff, of information gained by observation during examination, and later during an operation on tho plaintiff. Mr Treadwell appears for the defendant company in support of the application to admit the evidence, and Mr I!. D. Bell, K.C., for tho plaintiff to object.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD19110801.2.52
Bibliographic details
Evening Star, Issue 14633, 1 August 1911, Page 4
Word Count
133APPEAL COURT. Evening Star, Issue 14633, 1 August 1911, Page 4
Using This Item
Allied Press Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Allied Press Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.