Waihi Hospital Case

Manawatu Times, Volume 63, Issue 82, 7 April 1938, Page 8

Waihi Hospital Case

Doctor’s Reply to Slander Allegations DEFENCE OPENS Per Presa Association. AUCKLAND, Last Night. The case for the defence in the claim for £<7s for alleged libel and slander brought against Dr. Archibald Jenkins medical superintendent of the Waihi Hospital, by Mrs Isabella Jane Paddock, formerly matron of the hospital, was opened this morning before Mr Justice Fair in the Supreme Court. Mr Fitzherbert is appearing for the plaintiff and Mr Newbery for the defendant. Before opening the case for the defence, Mr Newbery moved for a nonsuit or judgment for defendant on the grounds that certain statements in the statement of claim alleged to have been mada by Dr. Jenkins were made on privilagad occasions, and that plaintiff had tolled to prove malice and that the yorfli complained of in two paragraphs if the statement of claim were not defamatory. As an alternative counsel moved toat the action be struck out or | plaicfft relegated to one case of action only oft grounds that certain paragraphs represented several causes of action and plaintiff must claim a separate amount in respect of each cause of action. Mr Justice Fair reserved all points for consideration later. Mr Newbery said the defence claimed that any statements made were made in the belief that they were true and were made with every honest intention and with no ulterior motive. Defendant, Archibald Jenkins, said that he commenced duties as medical superintendent of the Waihi Hospital in November, 1835. Mrs Paddock, the matron, had been at the institution about one month. Beyond what the matron told him he knew nothing about her qualifications. He understood that she had not been registered for about eight years, and he knew that the Health Department had refused to approve of her appointment as matron. He soon found that the matron knew nothing or little of the latest instruments used in Ihe operating theatre. He also found that the matron could not tell him the condition of all the patients. It was her duty to know this, because it was important particularly concerning those patients who had been operated upon. The sisters at the hospital took advantage of the inexperience of the matron. Report to Board. He said to her: “Don’t let them put it over you,” and told her to be present at every operation. Board members had asked him how the matron was shaping, and he had expressed the opinion that she would be all right if given a chance. She did not improve, and he mentionwd to her that as she did not have ttv. knowledge necessary to fill the position she should seek another job. He told her that unless she did so he would have to make a report to the board. Her reply was, “What has it got to do with you?” That was in July, 1937, and the same month he made a report to the board suggesting the appointment of another matron.

“I can honestly say.” said witness, “that I was the best friend the matron ever had, even up to now.” Dr. Jenkins said that following a dispute with the matron over a prescription which he instructed her to have made up, he told her that he did not want to have anything more to do with her, and asked her not to accompany him on the rounds of the wards. In answer to Mr. Fitzherbert, defendant said that the matron had dispensed medicine throughout the whole of her period at the hospital, but it was done upon his instructions. He admitted that the matron was an efficient dispenser and midwife. She had also efficiently administered anaesthetics under his instructions and when he

was present. Witness said that he gave two hospital sisters a lift in his car and took them to the Surf Club Ball. He did so to save them the expense of taxis. The sisters were off duty. Later, when he was called to hospital, he found none of the trained staff there. They were at the ball, including the matron. He considered that the matron should have been on duty at the hospital in the absence of any of the trained staff. In cross-examination, Dr. Jenkins said he had supported the matron against the charges made by Robinson and other members of the board. The matron continued dispensing up to the end. He did not know of any mistake she had made in dispensing apart from the atrophine incident. He would not 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 4 per cent, of atrophine would have been an overdose and the matron should have questioned him about it.

■ His Honour said that, if it appeared that a mistake might have been made in the prescription, it was only common sense that a dispenser should refer it again to the person responsible.

Witness said he attributed the matron's mistake with the atrophine to lack of knowledge. His charge was that the matron did not understand the difference between i per cent, and 4 per cent., and then tried to lio her way out of it instead of admitting it. He denied that the matron told him that she knew the bottle contained only l per cent. The ufiitron really came into the operating theatre to learn her work.

Mr. Fitzherbert: Is it not true that you are a very quarrelsome man?—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 continually 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 Court adjourned.