MATRON'S CLAIM

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23009, 9 April 1938, Page 19

MATRON'S CLAIM

ALLEGED SLANDER £475 DAMAGES SOUGHT CONCLUSION OF EVIDENCE THE WAIHI HOSPITAL The conclusion of the evidence was reached in the Supreme Court yesterday in the action for damages for alleged slander and libel brought by Mrs. Isabella Jano Paddock, former matron of the Waihi Hospital, against Dr. Archibald Jenkins, medical superintendent of the hospital. The action, which commenced on Monday, is being heard by Mr. Justice Fair. The plaintiff claimed £475 damages, alleging that Dr. Jenkins had spoken falsely and maliciously of her to members of the Waihi Hospital Board, and that as a result she had suffered in health and :in her professional reputation and had lost her position. The defendant made a general denial, and claimed that if the words complained of were used they were privileged and used without malice and in the belief that they were true. Mr. Fitzherbert is conducting; the plaintiff's case and Mr. Newbery appears for the defendant. Board Member's Evidence Called for the defence, Alfred Edward Jonson, a member of the "Waihi Hospital Board since 1932, said there had been difficulty in obtaining a matron at the time Mrs. Paddock was appointed. When he inquired, Dr. Jenkins told him that the "matron was a bit rusty, but she was improving." Afterward he told witness she was no help to him at all as a nurse in the theatre. When Dr. Jenkins made his charges against her she was given nine days to reply. She was rather worried over the charge about the solution of atrophine, and when the bottle was produced he pointed out that no percentage was marked on the bottle. Witness said he discussed the position irith Mr. Walton, who was acting on the matron's behalf, and Mr. Walton left him with the understanding that the matron would hand in her resignation to the chairman previous to the inquiry. When the matron's resignation came in witness told the board that whether they accepted or rejected it the matron was leaving. When the board declined to accept her resignation she withdrew it. To Mr. Fitzherbert witness said he had voted in favour of declining to accept the matron's resignation. He had described the doctor's charges againsit her as "frivolous," but he denied statements attributed to him in a report of the board meeting. His Honor: Did you say in effect that there was- not sufficient evidence to support the doctor's charges?—Oh, no. Witness denied having told the matron that she had the confidence of the board, which would see that she was protected from the superintendent. Assistant Superintendent

Dr. Herbert Hutson, who was appointed assistant medical superintendent of the Waihi Hospital in June of last year, said ho found the matron an agreeable colleague but her work was not up> to date. She did not assist in the work of the theatre. He had heard Dr. Jenkins direct the matron to make a i per cent solution of atrophine. He afterward saw the bottle with "4 per r;ent" marked on it. That was a dangerous solution.

His Honor said his present view was that the publication of the major allegations had been proved, and that on each occasion the defendant was entitled to the protection of qualified privilege. That privilege was based on the ground that he had a common interest with the persons to whom he communicated these remarks and that on each case the conduct of the hospital was being considered. The defendant did not require to show that the statements were true, so long as it appeared he honestly used the privilege for the purpose for which it was conferred. In this case the defendant used the privilege for the purpose of endeavouring to ensure that the hospital was carried on in the most satisfactory way. Onus on Plaintiff The protection was taken away if the plaintiff showed malice, and the onus of Bhowing that a person was actuated by malice, by unfairness, by something outside a desire to discharge his duty, rested upon the plaintiff. His Honor said he had had great difficulty in appreciating what evidence Mr. Fitzherberb relied on as showing illwill on the part of the defendant. Mr. Fitzherbert said that all the statements complained of were made on privileged occasions except the words used before Mr. Collier and Miss Broadfoot. It could in no sense be considered the defendant's duty to use any such words at all. It was a perfectly gratuitous insult. Counsel said he relied, firstly, on the untrue statements mado by the defendant regarding the Surf Club ball. There was no more contemptible and venomous thing than for a man to attempt to throw on the shoulders of a woman the crimes of which he himself had been guilty. Even :if that were the only incident they had to rely on he submitted they were entitled to a verdict,. ' His Honor adjourned the case until Monday for the hearing of further argument.