SLANDER ALLEGED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19718, 18 August 1927, Page 13

SLANDER ALLEGED.

DOCTOR CLAiMS DAMAGES.

SUM" OF £25 AWARDED.

± FURTHER ARGUMENT PENDING

[bx telegraph.—ow:, cor respondent. ]

DLNEDLN, Wednesday. The case brought by Dr. Garfield Stewart, of Milton, against Dr. A. C. Biggs, of Balelutha, superintendent of the South C'ugo Hospital, for £SOO damages for alleged slander was continued in the Supreme Court to-day. In the statement of claim it was set out that on December 13, 1926, a deputation of Milton citizens waited upon the South Otago Hospital Board in connection with certain matters that had arisen between the board and the plaintiff; that the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published of and concerning the plaintiff to the members of the board, to the members of the deputation and to other persons the following words: — "Some time ago a woman living in the ijeighbourhood of Milton was expecting confinement and a week before that she developed mumps. Dr. Stewart tried all he could to get that woman into private maternity homes at Balelutha, Milton and Forth Street, Dunedin—to get those places to take a woman suffer-

ing from a highly infectious disease into a place where there were other womeu 1 and little babies. Actually the case arrived at the door of the Milton Home, but the nurse in charge quite rightly refused to take it in."' Injury to Eeputation Alleged. The claim also set out that the above words were spoken and published by defendant in the presence of press reporters and were published in tw.o newspapers and that the plaintiff had been injured in his profession of a medical practitioner and in his character and reputation and had been brought into contempt and ridicule. It was admitted m the statement of defence that the defendant spoke the words referred to, but defendant claimed this had been done in discharge of his duty as medical superintendent of the board at the board's request. They were bona fide, without any malice toward the plaintiff and in the honest belief that what he said was true, and in reply to %. request of the deputation that they, as representing the Milton branch of the New Zealand Farmers' Union and various friendly societies, should be informed of the reason why the board had declined to reinstate the plaintiff as surgeon in the Milton Public Hospital. It was claimed the words were published only to the members of the deputation, who had a corresponding interest and duty in the matter and in the public interest-. Letter to Defendant. Mr. H. E. Barrowclough, who appeared for plaintiff, said Dr. Biggs' condemnation was unreasonable and showed malice. No action was taken until March 30, when plaintiff consulted a solicitor and a letter was sent to defendant, in which it was pointed out that the allegations made by Dr. Biggs were without f foundation. Jt was suggested that defendant had evidently been misinformed, it being pointed out that plaintiff had not made the application to the maternity homes as had been suggested. Dr. Stewart merely wanted to clear his character and only asked for a retraction of the statement and the payment of legal costs. A reply was not received •'until a fortnight later, when defendant, through his solicitor, replied that he had said nothing that necessitated a reply. Counsel continued that plaintiff was prepared to withdraw the action now if defendant admitted he had been wrong and publicly apologised. To-day was taken up with evidence for the defence, defendant maintaining that ' his stand throughout the affair was due to a desire to conserve the rights of his position as superintendent of South Otago Hospital. Findings by the Jury. For the defence, it was claimed that the occasion of the alleged statement was privileged. His Honor said he was inclined to think it was, but he would not like to decide upon that at present. The jury should decide on the whole case. The jury returned after 100 minntes with the various issues answered for plaintiff. They were Were the words defamatory of plaintiff in connection with his profession as doctor ?—-Yes. Were the words true ?—No. Did defendant honestly believe them to be true?— No. !Was defendant actuated by malice when he said the words? —Yes. Plaintiff was awarded £25 damages. Farther consideration of the action was adjourned and at a subsequent date the question will be raised whether there was evidence of malice to go to the jnry.