TREATMENT OF HORSE

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 7 November 1935, Page 3

TREATMENT OF HORSE

DEFAMATION ALLEGED VETERINARIAN CLAIMS £25 ACTION AGAINST PAPER. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) BLENHEIM, Nov. 6,

Evidence was taken in the Blenheim Magistrate’s Court to-day m a case in which H. E. Martin, a veterinary surgeon, Christchurch, is suing the “Christchurch Press’’ for £25 as damages for alleged injury to his professional reputation arising from the publication of a paragraph which he claimed reflected on his skill and ability. The case centres in the treatment of the well-known racehorse Vintage, belonging to Mr D. W. Westenra, Dunsandel. Martin alleges it was well known he was treating Vintage and that he had diagnosed a “bruised sole,” but on August 23 the “Press” published a paragraph as follows: “No Further Lameness. For the last two weeks Vintage’s track work has been gradually increased and he has been standing up to the test very satisfactorily. He has had further treatment, but this time to the shoulder, since when he has not shown any signs of his former lameness.” Martin took exception to this paragraph for the reason it was a well known fact that he was attending to the horse and was treating it for foot trouble and not shoulder trouble, and that the paragraph left the impression that He had been mistaken, in his diagnosis and treatment and as soon as the appropriate treatment to the shoulder was applied the horse recovered accordingly. Martin’s solicitor asked the defendant paper for withdrawal and the publication of an explanation, but the “Press” replied that it was absurd to regard the paragraph as defamatory and pointed out that Martin’s name was not mentioned therein.

John Joseph Corry', a well-known racing owner, said he was conversant with Vintage’s trouble, and (Martin had treated -his own horse Korero for similar trouble very successfully. -On reading the paragraph now complained of he came to the conclusion that Mar-tin-Had incorrectly diagnosed (Vintage’s complaint, and on September 2 he wrote to Martin expressing the hope that he had not made the same mistake in regard to Korero, w T hich was by then in Australia, having recovered so well as to justify the expense of the visit.

He pointed out to Martin -in the letter that in the circumstances he would have to have his horses in Australia continuously under a veterinarian's eve and he would expect Martin to meet the expense. “Apparently,” concluded the letter, “one is only a chopping block for ill-considered opinions, even if you can definitely tell, anyway.” This Concluded the Blenheim evidence and the case will be resumed at Christchurch.