A LAMS HONOUR.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 10133, 16 May 1896, Page 2 (Supplement)

A LAMS HONOUR.

- ' —•—-*—-——i- : v : j'£.>■''" STRANGE ACTION AGAINST A 1 WEST | v' END DOCTOR. A : ! J_ \'h- PATHETIC LETTERS. - <■■ CURIOUS ALLEGATIONS AGAtNST A SISTER-IN-LAW.....,'.:.. ..-,. MRS. KITSON'FhONOURTINDI. GATED. £12,000 DAMAGES.

IVe have already given an outline of this , case, but the details will be found of much interest.

The pleadings in the case of Kitson v. Plnyfair and wife claimed damages upon the ground that defendants had libelled and slandered plaintiff by imputing to her unchastity; and defendants, while denying the publication complained of, asserted that the circumstances constituted privilege.

Defendant is Dr. Playfair, the well-known jbstetrio physician at tho West End of London, while Mrs. Playfair is a sister of plaintiffs husband, Mr. Arthur Kitson, who had married her while representing the well-known Leeds house of his family in Australia, where he had married plaintiff, who was of a social position (counsel stated) 'equal to his own. While plaintiff (who was the mother of two children) was ill in 1892 Dr. Playfair was called in, and plaintiff complained that through being consulted professionally he acquired information with regard to her which he imparted to a third person, thus breaking a solemn professional confidence reposed in him, with the result that her husband's brothers had withdrawn from her an annuity of £500, which they allowed her, her husband having been (counsel stated) somewhat irregular in his habits and in his business duties. In 1892 plaintiff came to England, her husband going to Port Darwin from Melbourne. She had suffered a great deal in certain ways, and she was more or less an invalid during 1593. In January, 1894, she suffered so severely from hemorrhage that Dr. Williams was called in. As the case seemed to be one of difficulty, plaintiff suggested that Dr. Playfair, ber brother-in-law, should bo called in. She became very low, and an examination had to be undertaken under chloroform. While she was recovering she heard a portion of a conversation between Dr. Playfair and Dr. Williams, her own doctor, the words being, " She may havo been up to some pranks," It was alleged that after that she was again pub under chloroform, and when she came round Dr. Playfair was gone. She was much distressed by what seemed a vague imputation upon her, and on March 2 she wrote:—

Can you grant me an interview with you one day next week ? You are the one who is bringing these dreadful surmises against me. 1 can't enter into the details of my unhappy surroundings with Dr. Williams. I can say as to whatever it is you are thinking that none but the right one is the cause. My heart is breaking. There is only one can clear me, but not yet. Id the meantime words are said that no after sorrows can ever efface. Oh, Dr. Playfair, for the love you bear your wife and children, think all that is good and true of me. It will be muoh kinder to let me know the worst you are thinking from your own lips. Believe me, no v omau on this eat th ever needed a friend more sorely than I do, and some day when things are made clear you will be glad you did not judge me harshly for the sake of my two dear children, whom I only live for. I have had seas of trouble, and this seems the hardest of all, and I must clear myself.

To this Dr. Play fair replied on March 8 :— Dear Mrs. Kitson,— am greatly distressed that you and I should be put to the pain of corresponding about this matter. I had hoped that through Dr. Williams' intervention it might have been avoided. As it is, nothing remains for me but to put the matter very plainly. ... It does not require a man to be a teacher of midwifery like myself to speak confidently in such a case. It is one which admits of no dispute. In ordinary circumstances it would go no further. Such things are not unfamiliar to me in my professional experience, and they are no business of mine. Bat I am anxious, since I became cognisant of this professionally, that it should not go beyond me now. I, however, know mi wife well enough to be sure that if 1 allowed family intercourse to go on between us after what has passed she would not forgive me, and she would be right. lam the last man to deal hardly with anyone, and the only way out of the difficulty I could think of was to suggest that you should make your recent illness an excuse for settling somewhere out of London. Then I should feel justified in leaving matters as they are.

That suggestion, said Mr.Lawßon Walton, would involve an admission by plaintiff that she had misconducted herself and was unworthy to associate with the members of his family. She was to withdraw the contagion of her presence from the society of Dr. and Mrs. Piayfair. On March 10 plaintiff wrote :—

Dear Dr. Playfair,—l can only say that the occurrence you speak of is the strangest one I have had, and I have had some very severe ones. As I told you, at present I can't clear myself, and only repeat that the right person is the cause. As a man of the world, you must see that if I had been a woman to play " pranks" in the sense yon mean I need not have come to England to do it. I had the chance of living in the greatest luxury on the other side of the world—an offer to have all divorce proceedings paid and marriage afterwards—but I preferred keeping my name good for the sake of my dear mother, who has been my guiding star for so many dark hours, and for the sake of my two dear children, who you know are sweet and good. Once more I ask you, for the Bake of all you hold dear, to believe in me and to say no word that will injure me. . . . Yon wish me to go out of London while you think me capable of such dreadful conduct. Ought 1 to give up the children and live a sort of prisoner until such time as I can clear myself ? ailing this, would Ealing or Hammersmith be far enough away? Have you said anything to any member of the family to lead them to think I am the terrible creature you think for the sake of your wife' and children believe in me. If you only knew what it costs me to plead like this you would in common humanity believe only good.

Mr. Walton lead further correspondence between Mrs. Kitson and Dr. Piayfair. In one letter, dated March 10, Dr. Piayfair said he could not, and would not, carry on a correspondence of that kind, as the matter was in a' nutshell. No one, he said, who respected himself, could think that be could allow the family relations to go on when he knew that she had had a miscarriage, unless her husband bad been in England within three months. He said he could not regard vague talk about oaths, and unless it was proved to him that night that Arthur Kitson had been in England he should inform his wife and let her act for herself, although he should advise her to do nothing. If Arthur Kitson had, however, returned to England he could, however, he said, give no promise that he would not tell anybody else. By this letter Dr. Playfair constituted himself not only inquisitor, but executioner, and even fixed the time for the execution. What he directed the attention of the jury to was the fact that Dr. Playfair suggested that the lady's honour was in his bands, and that the facte and his judgment on them should be communicated to Mrs. Playfair, except on condition that she could prove that her husband had been in the country within three months. What was the motive for this? The only motive for breaking this professional confidence was a personal one to Dr. Piayfair and his family. Mr. Arthur Kitson had not been in the country, and yet his wife must assure Dr. Piayfair that' he had been in England within three months, or have her fair fame blasted. Dr. Johnson, in the last century, had said that, if a murdorer asked which way hie victim had gone, falsehood was justifiable to turn him off the track. -Even such a moralist as Cardinal Newman had justified falsehood under certain 1 cirdumstances. In her reply to Dr. Playfair's charge of adultery she said i— ''•'«.' ' lV

The want of sleep is killing me. How am I to act? I am bound by ray oath. Ought I to break it for you, and would you let it; rest only with you? •' ' * : < - The oath, said counsel, to wbioh the lady referred woe to conceal that her husband had been in this country. Her letter con- . tinued to say that ib did seem awful that tie first house at which she was welcomed was the first to refuse her admission. She |- confessed to impious thoughts sometimes, | often wpndering that Providence had alj? lowed Buob things to go on as caused her such suffering. The letter was a, most pitiful one,' and concluded:—"lb is of no use; I cannot see the paper." To this pleading letter Dr. Playfair replied that he could i nob and would not carry on correspondence of this character. He did not see ow any man respecting bis wife and'family

could, suppose (or one women that he could allow the matter to go on in this manner. Ho was called in. to consult about the lady, . who had had a miscarriage. • It was impossible to do anything other than he proposed, unless he wore assured that her husband had ; 1 been in the country' within three months, or unless the lady left London. A long correspondence followed, in which these suggestions were constantly made to the lady, but she shrank from "doing so, though she insinuated that such hadbeon the case, and pleaded the Hongkong incident,' where she assisted be? husband In escaping from justice, as a reason why that visit should nob become known. She said she had asked for an interview with defendant, bub it had been refused. Site 'said defendant wm judging her harshly, and protested her innocence. Why ho could not give her a hearing was, she said, beyond her. She said she had had her children with her day and night, and she thought she could account for every hour except one evening, which she spent with a brokenhearted sailor. The letter was a long one, and in it the plaintiff repeatedly repudiated the charge made against her. "If you only know the pain and sorrow I have endured I I shall go mad i After years of struggling to keep a good name I am hounded down like a very outcast," she went on. She assorted many times in the course of the letters that she had not been unfaithful to her husband, and used phrases which seemed to imply that her husband had come surreptitiously from Australia. Dr. Playfair's letters did nob deal in generalities. They were tho letters of a scientific man sure of his facts and clear as to his conclusions. He asked for a plain answer, "yes or no," to the question, ''Has your husband, Arthur Kitson, been in England ?" She declined time after time to answer this question. She shrank as an honourable woman, said Mr. Uwson Walton, from escaping from the difficulty by trifling with the truth, for Mr. Arthur Kitson, as a fact, had nob been in EngUnd. In spite of all these letters Dr. Playfair refused to acknowledge to any doubt as to the condition of the lady being consistent, with but two theories— unchastity or a visit of her husband to London within three months. Strange to say, in nearly every letter plaintiff asked that time might be given her to communicate with her husband, or that Dr. Playfair should do so himself. But both these favours were denied, and Dr. Playfair insisted that he must tell his wife the facts unless Mrs. Kitson would assure him of the presence of her husband in London. As the last moment the lady wrote, in a terrible skate of apprehension, after Dr. Playfair had threatened to communicate all to his wife at once: "Am 1 too late! Say yes. I can't sib up. III." By that time Dr. Playfair had relieved bis pent-up feelings by unburdening his professional confidences to his wife. And Mrs. Playfair did not think it necessary to keep this information to herself. She gave it to Sir James Kitson, who thereupon wrote to Mrs. Kitson tolling her that her allowance from him must cease so long as she remained in England. Sir James Kitson, however, Mr. Walton admitted, had acted throughout as a man of rectitude, against whom no complaint could bo made. Mrs. Kitson communicated with her husband in Australia, who at once returned to England. Ho wrote to Dr. Playfair stating that the correspondence was in his hands, and stating his intention of taking the part of as good, true, and honourable a woman as ho had ever met, and asking why Dr. Playfair had not communicated with him in the first place. Dr. Playfair, on September 23, wrote:—

My dear Arthur,—l extremely regret any circumstances should have arisen of an unpleasant nature. The facts are simply these. I was called in professionally to see your wife, and found her suffering from miscarriage. The date of this miscarriage was inconsistent with the pregnancy of a legitimate nature, the husband being in Australia. If she had been an ordinary patient this would not have disturbed me, but as a visitor to my house it was different.

On September 26 Mr. Arthur Kitson again wrote to Dr. Playfair, asking if he was called in professionally by his wife, as if so it distinctly showed alio had nothing to fear. Mr. Kitson saw how his wife had been driven into suggesting that ho bad made a second risit to London— suggestion for which, of course, there was no foundation—and he did not think it necessary to contradict the suggestion. The suggestion that she should adopt) the explanation about her husband's secret visit to England, it was submitted, was given by Dr. Playfair himself. There were, said counsel, conditions under which prevarication or oven absolute lying could be excused—hers was this lady alone, her husband away, 111 and prostrate with her terrible sufferings, without counsel, left with the alternative of the explanation which she had given if she would not lose all that life held dear. Now Dr. Playfair bad forced plaintiff into this position, for had she stated her husband had not been here her honour was gone. He (counsel) would show bow this pour woman had suffered in order to keep to the truth. She had first made excuses, and the story of her husband's return to England was the only course to adopt. Mr. Walton later gave a medical explanation of the way in which what he alleged to be Dr. Playfair's mistake might have arisen.

PLAINTIFF IX THK BOX. Mrs. Arthur Kition, who looked terribly ill, then went into the box, and in a long examination bore out her counsel's opening statement. Speaking of the examination under chloroform, witness said on recovering consciousness aha heard part of the conversation between Dr. Williams and Dr. Piayfair, She heard Dr. Playfair say, " 1 don't know what else it can be, I know very little about her. She may have been |up to hanky-panky." Dr. Williams said, " I don't think that it can be anything like that. She has submitted to every examination, and has been perfectly candid. She then struggled up and said, "Oh, Dr. Playfair, for God's sake led me go now if you think there is anything wrong." He then patted her and said, " There, there, my dear, it is all right; we think that it is a cancerous growth." He then said, " Give her some mora," and Dr. Williams dabbed a handkerchief in her face, and she again lost consciousness. She remained unconscious for a long- period, and she only recovered consciousness with great difficulty. Dr. Playfair had gone then. After the operation she was very ill, suffering pain and exhaustion. She was mentally disturbed by what she heard. She asked Dr. Williams if she should write to Dr. Playfair, as Dr'. Williams said she owed her life to him. In consequence of that sho wroto. In the correspondence she remembered suggesting to Dr. Playfair that her husband might have been in England. Her husband bad ,not been there. Mrs. Kitson wished to say now how absolutely sorry she was that she made any statomenb that reflected on her husband in that way. At that time she was mentally affected, Witness went on to speak of the correspondence with Mrs. Piayfair, and directly and emphatically denied that she bad ever been guilty of misconduct. In one letter she said that she had beon most careful since she came to England; had received no letter of introduction, and had spent all her time with her children, "except that one evening spent with a brokenhearted sailor," She hardly knew what she meant by the expression, but she believed that she referred to hor husband, Who was then on bis way home. When she said in a letter, " I loavo vou to guess what the feelings were of the woman who aided a man to escape justice from a visit that had ended badly, she presumed that she meant that to refer to her husband, and to mean that he had been home. When her husband came be said) "Lot me now fight ray own people; you have done it long enough," and that be knew them better than she did. '

KXPERT KVIDHNdB. Dr. Sponcer said that he had beard the evidence of plaintiff, and had on two occasions in the present March examined the lady, and he had examined other, matters also. 'In his opinion the facts at issue were consistent with the lady's story, and with her nob having seen her husband within sixteen months, He was prepared to justify this from bis general knowledge. He was aware of the general conduct of his profession. .After.discussion witness was allowed, . subjeob to objection, to express the opinion thab the professional rule was that information obtained during professional attendance should be considered as confidential. There were exceptions to the role— was that the doctor should not by nob divulging a thing make himself accessory to a crime. There was another exception—that in a court of law a medical, man was bound to divulge professional secrets,'/ Cross-examined: j He did not think there was any rule of confidence

binding upon medical men that was not binding upon other professional men.) lb was a general rule that was left to every honourable man to decide upon for himself, and Dr. Playfair was of course an honourable man when ho answered the question as to the lapse of time in this•' case;*-; He had never known within bis own experience of such a lapse of time.

MR. KIWOX.'S EVIDENCE.

, Mr. Arthur Kitson, tho husband of plaintiff, said that he left' Sydney in September or October, 1892. His wife was in such health that she seemed to be always suffering and in the dootor's hands. When he left Sydney he went to Port Darwin. His wife was then so ill that Dr. Ogg advised a long voyago for her. He wrote to his brother James, saying that he intended coming to England. Prom Port Darwin lie left for Hongkong on his way to Honolulu, where he was offered work. Ho had a letter from hU wife on June 6,1891, which he destroyed, because it was not his custom to keep letters while travelling about in Australia. Arriving here on August 28,1894, he found his wife living in Comorath Road, West Kensington. She told him all that had taken place, and handed him the whole of the correspondence that had passed between herself and Dr. Playfair. He (witness) then wrote to Dr. Playfair and Sir James Kitson, and the correspondence ensued which had been read.

Mr. Atkinson: Did you satisfy yourself that she had been always faithful to you ? Sir F. Lockwood objected to the question.

Mr. Justice Hawkins: I shall not permit Dr. Playfair to endeavour to prove that this lady is guilty, because he has not put that plea upon the record, and it must be taken that he has admittod that the assumption prejudicial to her honour is unjustifiable.

IMPUTATIONS WITHDRAWN,

What did you mean by this phrase in your letter to Sir Jaraos Kitson: " How is it that it oou Id not be easily seen that her reticence About my movements was a very, grave mistake TV Did you moan to suggest that your wife should not have bean reticent about your return to this country ? I think ib means exactly what it expresses. You got an answer to that letter showing the construction Sir James Kitson put upon it ? Yes. He wrote:—" Dear Arthur,—l beg to acknowledge receipt of yours of September 17, enclosing a copy of one you had written to Dr. Playfair. Your statement that you have met your wife disposes of any imputation on her character." I never made any such statement, nor did my wife do so. You wrote to Sir James Kitson telling him he was in error ? I did not, it was not worth it. . Answering further questions, the witness said he had received letters both from Sir James Kitson and Dr. Playfair, withdrawing the accusations against Mrs. Kitson "after a fashion." After some further questions, in which witness averted that he had received information that Dr. Playfair had repeated the slanderous statement to people not members of tho family, plaintiffs caso was closed. THE CASE FOB THE DKKKNOE.

Sir F. Lockwood then addressed the court for the defence. Counsel submitted that the communication made to Mrs. Playfair was a privileged communication, having regard to the intimate relations which existed between the parties.

His Lordship: I think there is evidence of publication, and I cannot stop tho case now.

Dr. Playfair was then called and examined by Mr. Mathews. Doming to the date of the operation on Mrs Kitson, wit ness said that the result of that operation was that he expressed surprise Jo Dr. Williams, as he believed Mr. Kitson to bo in Australia. Mrs. Kitson showed signs of returning consciousness, and the administration of chloroform was continued. It was not a fact that he said to Dr. Williams, "I don't know what else it can be," nor did Dr. Williams rejoin, "Idon't think it can be thine like that." Neither did the lady struggle up and say, "Oh, Dr. Playfair, let me go now if yea think there is anything wrong." The witness also denied that he thereupon patted the lady and said, "Thero, there, my dear, it's all right. We think it is a cancerous growth." The witness then gave a minute medical exposition of the circumstances which led him to form his opinion. By Mr. Lawson Walton : Do you retain that opinion still ? I have not entered a plea of justification. Unless His Lordship rules that I have to answoc the question I cannot. Mr. Justice Hawkins thought it was fit that the question should be put. Mr. Lawson Walton: Do you still retain the opinion adverse to the honour of this lady, notwithstanding what you havo heard? I do. Continuing, witness said that he had placed his caso in the hands of his counsel. He left it with them. (Laughter.) The woman was guilty, ho was sure. When she charged him with maliciously saying that she was guilty he did nob plead it because he was advised by his counsel nob to do so. Mr. Lawson Walton: You still tell the jury that, having heard what that lady has said, what her husband has said, and what Dr. Spencer has said, you adhere to that opinion 1 I do, and lam obliged to answer that quostion under protest. Witness proceeded to givo answers on the medical aipect of the case. He did not grant the plaintiff an interview, because it was a painful matter to discuss with a lady member of his family. But you wero proposing to make a communication which would be fatal to her honour 1 was not proposing to make a communication. You were proposing to make a communication to your wife, sir? Under certain conditions. Dr. Playfair said that ho placed what he took away from the lady in the hands of the Curator of their Museum at King's College Hospital, and told him to examine it carefully, and to seo what it was. Witness gave him no information as to how and under what circumstances he had obtained it. He never believod the statement that Mr. Arthur Kitson had been in this country in December, 189.1. He always thought lb was an untruth. He knew that when the communication was made to Sir James Kitson this lady and her two children woro dependent upon the allowance of £400 a year from him. Reexamined : The Curator of King's College Hospital, to whom he hande'd the substance for examination, was Dr. Hugh Playfair, tlio official Curator of the Museum, and he was a second Cousin of withes*.

Dr. R. M. Williams said he examined the lady in January and Fobruary, 1894. She told him that she had not seen her husband for twolve months or over. She said she was a connection of Dr. Piayfair, and thereupon ho Suggested that, she should 'see Dr. Playfair. She agrpdd., Witness in detail corroborated the statement of Dr. Piayfair as to the lady's symptoms, as to the examination that took place, as to what was discovered, and as to what was the matter with the lady. He added that Dr. Playfair did not say to her that it was a cancerous growth. When plaintiff asked him as to the nature of. hor illness, he said there could not be two opinions As to what it was j that ib was a miscarriage and time his only business was to get her well. In cross-examination witness admitted that when the plaintiff's solicitor wrote asking for a statement, he (witness) reforred him to Dr. Playfair's solicitors. The husband of the plaintiff called upon him and asked for information, and witness told him that his opinion was the sumo as that of Dr. Playfair. He bad no remembrance of reminding Dr. Playfair at the operation that the plaintiff had submitted herself for examination and had behaved with perfect candour throughout. Ib was true that she had submitted herself to examination, and had behaved with candour. Dr. Playfair said nothing about "hanky-panky" or " pranks 1 ' in reference to the plaintiff. Dr. Hueh Piayfair, the Curator of King's College. Museum, deposed to having seen and examined what lie had received from Dr, Playfair microscopically, and with the naked eyo, and to having come to the same conclusion as Dr. Piayfair had arrived at. Mr. John Bland Sutton, Fellow of the College of Surgeons, and Sir John Williams, obstetric, physician at University College, were called to aire similar evidence. In cross-examination the last witness, in reference to professional confidence, said that the general rule was that the confidence imposed on t a medical man should be inviolate, There were, however, some exceptions. i ..,,., Sir John Broadbent said that he agreed as to this with, the lost witness practically, i It was a very, strong unwritten. law that I the confidence imposed in a medical man | should not be divulged, bub there were ox- ' ceptions to the rule, such as! were spoken to !by the last witness.';,",.,:.(.'! ' , .

Somo other medical evidence was given, and the cage for the defendants was coneluded. " Counsel then proceeded Jto ad-< dress •• the ■court, and the hearing was adjourned. "" . ", •!■ C'l SCMMWG DP AND VKItDIOT. ; •; ' AD a subsequent hearing. His Lordship; in summing up. went verjf -'closely' into ; ;' the history of the case. ■ After dealing with the facts His Lordship said that Dr. Spencer, a man as eminent in obstetric' medicine as Dr, Playfair, had said one thing, while Dr. Playfair said another. Dr. Playfair said he did not look to any moral consideration, but was speaking from his medical examination, and he had stuck to hie 'opinion from the first. lb is, however, admitted that such occurrences as these wore rare, but those occurrences did occur, and Dr. Spencer had spoken to this being one of these raro case*. The first Mrs.. Arthur Kitson knew of this suggestion was when slightly recovering she thought she heard Dr. Playfair use the expression " hankypanky." Dr. Playfair pooh-poohed thai, but Dr. Williams said he "did not reoolloot"— Very curious expression. Dr. Playfair had, ab the request, of his wife, communicated his opinion to Sir James Kitson, and was, therefore, clearly responsible. The action was brought by this lady for no other purpose than the vindication of her honour, and that was the reason they had been occupied for the past six days in investigating the case. No plea of justification had been put on the record by Dr. Playfair, although had he. so desired it it could have been put forward, but it had been stated that Dr. Playfair was advised not to plead justification. Had he dune so the jury would have had to try the plain questions of "Yes" or "No." On the question of the making of a privileged communication on the part of a medical man, His Lordship pointed out that there woro occasions on which, in the interests of justice, medical men were bound to. communicate certain professional secrets, but as to imparting asecret for the protection of one's wifo or children that was a very delicate matter. Suppose, continued His Lordship, the privilege. of uttering slanderous words were abused, that the words were uttered as a privileged communication and were not bona fide uttered with the belief that it was true, no one would be justified In saying that it was a privileged communication, on which one could speak to a person interested in knowing. Again tho privilege would bo defeated if a man gave a bad character to a person with malicious intent. The pleadings of plaintiff were in substance that defendants had nob tho privilege in communicating with Sir James Kitson, when, as a matter of fact, Mrs. Playfair knew that the information had been obtained in professional confidence, and she, therefore, had no right to impart that knowledge as she had done. To Sir James the question was whother this was a privileged communication, and whether there were indirect motives beyond the sense of duty. Referring to the letter bogging for an interview, why, he asked, did not Dr. Playfair grant the interview! He had examined this woman. He, with his vast knowledge and experience, could have put questions to her which would have beon vital to her case. He did not see her, but wrote asking her to make her recent illness an excuse for leaving London, so that their families should not be brought into contact, otherwise he would have to place tho matter in the hands of his wife. That was not only ovidence of publication of the slander, but it was relied upon as showing the feeling which actuated Dr. Playfair at the time. During tho reading of the letters plaintiff was observed to be painfully agitated. The tears welled up to her eyes and foil through her veil upon her dress in a perfect stream. After remaining out an hour the jury returned into court, and in reply to the Associate's question, " Have you agreed upon your verdict?" the foreman replied, " Yes." " Do you find a verdict for plaintiff or thodefoudant!" was tho next query. Immediately came tho reply, " For plaintiff, £12,009 damages." The answer was greotod with such a furore of applause as the court has seldom witnessed. Stamping and clapping of hands were continued for soveral minutes, in spite of the utmost efforts of the officials of the court, and oven tho holding up of his hands in horror by the learned judge was not successful in putting an end to tho scene. Quiet was at length restored, but not bofore plaintiff had been carried, rather than led, out of court by her husband and her solicitor, in an all but fainting condition. Judgment was given accordingly. Mr. Mathews applied for leave to appeal on tho ground of privilege. His Lordship declined on tho ground that tho jury by their finding found expressed malice. Mr. Mathows asked for leave on tho ground thAt the damages were excessive. ' Mr. Walton asked for judgment. Mr. Justice Hawkins: Yes. Mr. Walton: I also ask for leave to amend the statements of claim which ask for a Rinallor sum, together with costs, and a certificate for special jury. Mr. Justice Hawkins:. Yes, I think so. Mr. Mathews: I apply for a stay of execution pending an appeal, the damages being brought into court, Mr. Walton: I shall ask that a sum bo provided for tho costs of this litigation, and paid ovor at once. Mr. Justice Hawkins: Yes; and nob to be recovore'l back in any circumstances. Mr. Mathews said that his clionts could not submit to any terms.

APrKAI, GRANTED. In the Queen's Bunch Division, before Mr. Justice Hawkins, Sir Frank Lockwood, with whom was Mr, 0. Mathews, mentioned the ciso of Kitson v, Playfair. Sir Frank said that, having regard to the very serious questions which arose, His Lordship had been asked to grant a stay of execution, and he {Mr. Justice Hawkins) had promised to consider it, Mr. Justice Hawkins i I have considered it in all its bearings, and have made up my mind as to the course I ought to adopt. If I had disapproved of the verdict and thought it was against the evidence, or had reason to disagree with it, I should hate granted a stay upon certain terms; but I have always felt that after a jury has given a vordict one ought not, unless one has reason to disagree, to interfere, inasmuch as I know your only redress Is by entering an appeal. I think I ought to let you go there, unless you come to some' arrange* incut botweon yourselves, Sir F. Lockwood, having consulted with Mr. Lawson W* 'ton, said: I have made an arrangomept which will release us. By consent, a sum of money will be payed over to tho solicitors representing this lady (Mrs. Arthur Kit-ion) unconditionally, and there will be a stay ponding an appeal Mr. Justice Hawkins: I think if there is an intention to go to the Court of Appoal at all it should bo with alt speed. Sir F. Lockwoo 1: Certainly. lam very glad I have been able to arrange this, rather than have the matter go further and be contested.

I/KMEtt VftOM MB. KIWOtf. A London correspondent has received from Mr. Arthur Kitson tho following letter:—"My dear Sir,— am deeply grateful for the many expressions of sympathy I have received from different parti of both England and Scotland, in many casos from entire strangers, while the case was in progress, and also for the numerous congratulations since its end. We little expected such an end. and our only aim was to throw off tho shame that waft cast on my wife. Had an apology and withdrawal been given on my return home those painful proceedings would never have taken place, and many bitter hours would have, been spared to both sides. I cannot, ovon in our hour of triumph, forgot that the beaten sido is composed of my own kin, and I cannot help feeling for them, although their suffering has not been caused by roe and mine, but by themselves, My wife is much better and brighter, and I think for that I am greatly Indebted to Mr. Lawson Walton, who requested a medical friend of his to take my wifo in hand, I trust to be able to get her away for a day or so to-morrow, to stay with friends, and 1 hope to see her her own bright solf again. I never for one moment doubted my wife's honour. Again thanking you in my wife's name and my own.— I am, dear sir, yours truly, A. Kitson."

INTERVIEW WITH DR. PUWAIft, A representative of the Despatoh News Ac i\oy has interviewed Dr. Playfair at hiH residences in Goorgo-atveeb, Hanover Square. Dr. Playfaic, who declined to estpress any opinion as to the result of the trial, complained that his conduct had been much misunderstood and !seriously raisreprosonfced. It lias been said that in comraunicating to Sir James Kihon the opinion he had formed regarding. Mrs. Kifcson ha

had been guilty of a ({rave: breach of confidence. Had that opinion been the result of what Mrs. Kitson had said to him as her medical adviser it certainly '; would - have been to. As it was, that opinion was based on nothing she had said to him, but on hie own experience: as;" an obstetric physician, and no question of confidence could, therefore, arise. Mrs, Kitson, at tlio time he spoke to hir brother-in-law, had the «t(r& not only into his family circle, but to that of Sir James Kitson, to" whoso daughters his wife stood in loco : partntis, ! and, therefore,'there attached to mm a certain amount of responsibility with regard to those young ladies'. .Had he communicated —as it had been suggested he should have done—with Mr... Arthur Kitson he' would have at once laid himself open—and justly so—to the charge of breach of confidence, for ho would have been altogether Outside Ms right in communicating to the lady's husband all he discovered about her. What he claimed was the right to protect his own wife and family, and in view he whs supported, he believed, by the whole medical profession. It had been said also that the proper course for him to have pursued under these circumstances was to have told his wife and daughters to have nothing further to say to Mrs. Kitson, without giving them rhyme or reason for so doing. All he could say to this was that Buoh a step would have been most unfair to the lady, for it would have laid her under suspicions even worse than those she complained of. With regard to the loss of Mrs. Kitson's allowance, Dr. Playfair said he was unaware of the fact that she was receiving money from Sir James at the time ho spoke to him. Asked as to what action he contemplated, Dr. Playfair exclaimed, "I am in the hands of my legal advisers. I shall, of course, appeal, but on what grounds I may not Say now," In conclusion, Dr. Playfair mentioned the fact that he had received letters from medical men in every part of the country, who wore mostly strangers to him, in which they expressed approval of his action, and regret at the verdict of the jury.