£500 CLAIMED

Evening Star, Issue 19637, 17 August 1927, Page 6

£SOO CLAIMED

MEDICAL MEN iH COURT SLANDEROUS STATEMENT ALLEGED CASE FOR THE DEFENCE, Hearing was continued in. the Supremo Court this morning, before His Honor Mr Justice Sim and a special jury, of the case in which Dr Stewart., of Milton, is claiming £SOO Jain ages from Dr Biggs, medical .suporiinSiclcnt of tlic South Otago Hospital, for alleged false and malicious publication. Mr H. E. Barrowclough, with him Mr C. B. Barrowclough. appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr J. S. Sinclair, with him Mr U. S. Brcmncr, lor the defendant.

The alleged false and malicious statement, which was used hy Dr Biggs in reply to a deputation to tlic South Otago Hospital Board, was; “Some lime ago a woman living in the neighborhood of Milton was expecting confinement, and a week before that she developed mumps. Dr Stewart tried all ho could to get that woman into nrivato maternity homes at Balclutha, Milton, and Forth Dunedin—in get those places to take in a woman suffering from a. highly infectious disease into a place whore there were other women and little babies actually. Tho case arrived at tlic door of tho Milton home, hut tho nurse in charge nuife rightly refused to take it in.” Plaintiff claimed that he had been injured in his profession, and in his character and reputation, and had been brought into contempt ami ridicule. lb was admitted in (lie statement of defence that the defendant spoke tho words referred to, but this had been done in the discharge of his duty as medical superintendent of tlie hoard at the hoard’s request. They were bona fide, without any malice towards the plaintiff, and in the honest belief that what ho said was true; and in reply to tlic request of tho deputation that they, as representing the Milton branch of tho Now Zealand Fanners’ Union and various friendly societies, should bo informed of tho reason why the hoard had declined to reinstate Ihe plaintiff as medical surgeon in the Milton Public Hospital: and the words were published only to tho members of tho deputation, who had a corresponding interest and duty in tlic matter and in tho public interest. Evidence was given yesterday on behalf of tho plaintiff’s case, ami this morning the case for the defence was presented. In opening tho case Mr Sinclair said tlic first defence was that the words used were in substance true. In law it was not required that in a. case of this nature tho whole of the details of the statement were true, hut merely that in substance the statement was true. The oilier defence _ was that, even if the words were not in substance true, they wore privileged in law. If His Honor held that the occasion was not privileged, then the defence was still entitled to ask for a. verdict unless tlic plaintiff could establish, not merely by suspicion or hy a reckless statement of tho plaintiff, but hy conclusive evidence, that the statement made was prompted by malice. Mr Sinclair wont on to say that Dr Biggs came to New Zealand in 1925, and soon after arrival obtained the appointment of medical superintendent of the South Otago Hospital Board. Ho •was a, man of high qualifications, particularly with respect to public health, under which branch maternity hospitals ewero included. Dr Biggs was a stranger to the district and to the medical men, and could hardly have any feelings of malice. One of Dr Biggs's first duties was to appoint the two doctors at Milton ns his deputies for six months each. Dr Biggs was entitled to expect that Dr Stewart’s acceptance of tho position meant that ho would give loyalty and obedience. In May Dr Biggs gave notification that tlic main hospital at. Balclutha bad been completed, and that non-paying patients who had hitherto been sent to Dunedin should go if practicable to Balclutha. After the receipt of that communication there were signs of mutiny Ironi Dr Stewart. The board had decided on its policy, however, and if Dr Stewart proposed to remain as deputy to Dr Biggs lie should have carried out flint policy. Dr Stewart would not give a pledge to carry out the policy. Actuated by the spirit of rebellion, Dr Stewart, while stjll continuing as deputy for Dr Biggs, commenced to flout file supo!intendeni in other directions. It lie came so intolerant that it was Dr B;ggs s duty to dismiss Dr Stewart as Ins deputy, and ho did so. It was alleged that dismissal was prompted b.v nothing else hut malice. Later Dr Stewart was dismissed as an honoriry medical officer, and rightly so. The defence claimed that all tho discussion that took place before the deputation was privileged, that tiic parties had a common interest in the discussion, and that (he law protected any speaker in respect to any remarks so long as it was not proved the remarks were untrue, and prompted solely by malice. Dr Biggs was asked to give tlic reasons why he would not recommend tho reinstatement of Dr Stewart, and he gave all the information ho honestly believed to be true. In tho remarks of Dr Biggs there were a number of serious charges made publicly, but they had not been contradicted by Dr Stewart. _ It was a significant fact when plaintiff _ was found extracting from the whole list of indictments a minor charge lor which lie claimed £SOO damages, ft was submitted Unit Dr Biggs had done no more than his duty, and was in no way prompted by malice. DEFENDANT’S JA MDENCE. Dr Biggs said ho had been practising since 1908. Ho commenced duty at South Otago on December 1, 1925. Ho was a complete stranger to tho whole country. At that time tho base hospital at Balclutha was not completed. Dr Stewart was appointed his deputy at Milton on March 1, 192(5. Dr Edgar had held the position for .six months before that. Tho idea, of eaclx of the doctors at Milton having .six months as bis deputy was to lie fair, and give thorn an equal standing in the community. Jn May, 1920, he found that Dr Stewart was not carrying out instructions with regard to patients who should be sent to Balclutha. Ho visited Milton and saw two doctors in order to explain any misunderstandings. There was to bo"a public meeting at Milton with regard to the status of tho Milton Hospital, and lie wrote his views and posted them to Milton'. Those views were adopted by tho board. At a subsequent meeting of tho doctors of the district, Dr Edgar said tho views of witness had cleared up any misunderstandings, hut Dr Stewart argued in a. heated way, and used expressions tantamount to calling him a bar. Witness asked Dr Stewart on another occasion if he would loyally co-operatc in carrying out the policy of the board. Dr Stewart’s reply was "evasive. When witness went to Milton he heard that Dr Stewart was sending in a, case suffering from mumps. That case arrived while he was there. He rang Dr Stewart, and told him infections eases could not bo taken into the general hospital. Ho asked Ir Stewart either to see that tho case was taken homo or sent to the isolation block at Ivaitiuigata. Dr Stewart, started to talk in a heated and unreasonable way. Finally witness told him to have the patient removed by midday of the following day. Dr Stewart rplied that he would tel the patient that Dr Biggs bad ordered him out cf the hospital. Witness said Dr Stewart could tell the patient that, but should tell the natient ±he reason, .The.

patient was ultimately scut, to Kaitangata at: the direction of witness. Dr Stewart said lie wanted all instructions in writing, and witness told him not lu bo a tool, as lie would have to take instructions over the telephone. Witness also gave details of a ease of whooping rough, which was sent to the Milton Hospital by Dr Stewart in contravention of instructions. Dr Stewart was dismissed as ills deputy at Milton, and Dr Edgar was appointed in his place. Dr Stewart was allowed to treat Ills own patients at the hospital, but all cases of admissions, discharges, and transfers were under the supervision of Dr Edgar. Later, as the result of a report by Dr Edgar, Dr Stewart was given a month’s notice of the termination of his engagement as an honorary medical officer. The reason for that was that Dr Stewart was not attempting to carry out the policy of the board, hut appeared to be obstructing to tho best of his ability. AA’itness was told by Dr Crawshaw that Dr Stewart had attempted to get a maternity case suffering from mumps into the Forth Street Home. Dr Crawshaw said ho had approved of Dr Russell Ritchie’s action in not allowing the case into Forth Street, AA’itness mentioned the case to Dr Edgar, who said it must bo the same case that Dr Stewart had tried to get into Nurse Marryatt’s homo and into a hospital at Balclutha. Dealing with what occurred when the deputation waited on the board, Dr Biggs said it was a pretty good report in the ‘ Free Press.’ The majority of members of the board wanted the proceedings taken in committee, but tho deputation insisted on it being taken in public. One member of the board said that Dr Stewart wished the matter to bo made public. Witness believed every word lie said to bo absolutely true. In making the statement lie Lad no personal feeling towards Dr Stewart. Witness recommended that Dr Stewart be reinstated if lie would give a pledge to obey instructions. It was because Dr Stewart had not given the pledge of loyalty that he was not permitted to attend the. Milton Hospital as a medical officer. Ho considered it would have been dangerous to allow the woman with mumps to bo admitted into the cottage at Nurse Marryatt’s Maternity Home. Tlic case could have been sent to tho Milton Hospital as an urgent case, and treated in a special room. To Mr Barrowclough defendant said both lie and the board wanted the matter taken in private, hub the deputation insisted on it being taken in public. In making his statement lie was actuated by no personal motive; be spoke as medical superintendent, and wanted to give the deputation all the information it desired. He was quite fair to Dr Stewart in_ regard to his attitude over the sending of patients to Dunedin. Had lie set bis mind on getting Dr Stewart out he could have done it on tho first occasion when lie found that Dr Stewart had admitted an infectious case to the Milton Hospital. Witness refuted a suggestion that ho had been autocratic. Ho was mejroly carrying out his duties as medical superintendent. Evidence was given by Dr Edgar, and the case was adjourned till tho afternoon.