ALLEGED DEFAMATION

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8650, 7 February 1914, Page 13

ALLEGED DEFAMATION

CLAIM AGAINST DOCTOR FARMER'S WIFE SEEKS £5Ol DAMAGES. Pre?s Association. AUCKLAND, February G. A claim for MW I as damages for alged defamation occupied tho attention i His Honour Air Justin© Cooper and a jury of twelve at the Supreme Court today. The plaintiff, Rachael Jane Wilson, wife of a Paparoa farmer (for whom Mr J. R. Read, K.C>, with him Mr Kirker, appeared), alleged that Dr Edmund Sprague Dukes, of Paparoa, had published a letter in the Northern Wairoa paper, in the course of which occurred the following words :— “Again a mother • takes away the last chance of her cliud's life by retiming to nurse id quiet for f<mr o. infection/■’ These words, it was claimed by plaintiff, referred to herself, and w©ro false and malicious. Defendant, who admitted that the words referred to the plaintiff, set up the defence of justification and privilege. lie was not represented by counsel. Mr .Read, in opening the case* said the passage complained of was published in a newspaper in tho Northern Wairoa district, and was contained in a letter written in reply to attacks made by certain people in connection, with the management of the local Medical Association. This dispute had nothing to do with tho plaintiff. The facts of the once were that one of Mrs Wilson’s children was suffering from sore throat on July 11th, 1910. This was looked upon as. practically nothing, but on the following day the illness developed to such an extent that it was deemed advisable to send for a doctor. Dr Dukes arrived at about 9 a.m.* and at hie request the eervice of the county nurse were secured. Plaintiff was not told by the doctor that her child was suffering from diphtheria, but learnt that fact later on from one of the members of the household. The mother nursed her child throughout the day. The doctor returned about 9 p.m., and a few minutes later the child died. Some httle time afterwards the father-in-law of the plaintiff apparently formed the opinion that the child’s death was, due to neglect on the part of the doctor, but in the meantime the doctor was perfectly friendly with the father of the One day the doctor and the father of the child met and discussed the statements of the father-in-law, and then the doctor made statements alleging that the mother of tho child had neglected at. rhe father promptly ©truck him. Reference was made to the matter in the form of a letter written bv the doctor on December 12th. 1910, but then the matter was dropped for over three years. On September 10th, 1013. in the course of a letter concerning the local Medical Association, the doctor dragged in the words, "again the mother takes' away the last chauce of her child’s life bv refusing to nurse it quiet for fear of infection. This, the residents of the district understood to refer, to Mr© Wilson, but the doctor went further and sent the letter round the district in the form of a circular. The plaintiff in the action denied that she had refused to nurse her baby when told to do so by the doctor on the evening on which it died. / Several witnesses gave evidence to the effect that they had read the letter in the paper and had no doubt that the extract referred to Mrs Wilson. ■ Defendant in evidence ©aid he had received a casual, note from the father or the child asking him to attend to it. He examined the child and found tne case hopeless and told tho father his opinion. Further, he left instructions that the child must bo nursed. Just about dusk he started out again to see tho child, arriving, he believed, about o p. Upon his arrival h© found the child lying in bed in a position that would (have been satisfactory had the child been comfortable, but the child was holding out its hand© to ite mother and was trying to eit up. Thereupon he told the mother to take it up, but as sh© took no action when he repeated tho command again and again he told her just what he thought of her. Then no did what ho could to amuse the child to keep it quiet. He Toft the room to talk to the father, and five minutes later the child died. , , . v , Four witnesses were called by the «e----rbndant. They stated that until the appearance of the letter in the newspaper defendant had £hid nothing disparaging concerning Mr© Wilson. Clara victoria Andrews, who was ladyhelp in tho Wilson household, wa© called by Mr Read for the purpose of giving rebutting evidence. This witness stated that tho mother had Carried out the doctor's ,instructions and had nursed tho sick child practically all the dav. Late in the afternoon It had wanted to lie down, and this the mother, acting upon the doctor’s instruction© that the child must bo humoured, had allowed it to do. Dora Wharfe. an ©x-ootantry nurse, who attended to Hrg Wilson's child, considered that everything had been done for the child that could have been done. Referring to the incident that occurred soon, after the doctor s arrival, the nurse said the mother without delay had lifted the child up «« the doctor had ordered. Never at any time had £he attempted to avoid infection. This closed the evidence, and the case waa adjourned until this morning.