SAWBONES v. SETTLER.

NZ Truth, Issue 217, 21 August 1909, Page 11

SAWBONES v. SETTLER.

A Doctor and Diptheria.

A case of considerable interest to settlers m Tauranga m particular, and the public m general, was commenced m the Supreme Court, Auckland, one day last week, before Mr Justice Edwards and a jury of twelve. Arthur Herbert Hallen, medical practitioner of Te Puke, sued Samuel Crawford, a settler m that district, and chairman of the Tauranga County Council, for £50J. damages for alleged slander. • Mr Reed, with him Mr Fhillips, appeared for plaintill, and Dr. Bamford, with him Mr Hodge, for plaintiff. . In opening, Mr Resd stated that plaintiff was a 'doctor at To. Puke, and defendant was a land ' owner -m the district. As medical practitioner, plaintiff had certain duties cast upon him m regard to reporting cases of infectious diseases. He was obliged, under a penalty of £10, and also being suspended for six months, to report tv the local authority ANY CASE OF INFECTIOUS ... DISEASE that came within his knowledge. This case had . arison through the doctor reporting, m accordance with his duties, a case of diptherla m the Te Puke district. It was a farming district", and m recent years, probably on account of the rise m the price of butter and so on, had become, to a very large extent, a dairying district. Diptheria m a dairying "district was exceedingly serious, not only on account of the danger incidental to the • disease, but because it would probably prevent a number of farmers from selling their milk to the factories. That being so, a statement that diptheria had broken out m. the '. district would cause considerable alarm. amon|st the community. A Mr Bishopric, the local schoolmaster, had a number of his family down with diptheria, and Dr, Hallen attended them. The matter was duly reported, and the -school was closed for a time, all necessary precautions being taken. Some time after, another case occurred. A setiMer named McGee went to the doctor and complained of having a sore threat. The doctor found suspicious symptoms, and .took a sample" of mucous from the man's throat. This was sont to the Government Bacteriological Department, Wellington, and the Health Officer sont hack the reply that it , was a case of diptheria. Plaintiff then served the requisite notices on the local body. His action m doing that was re- ] sented, and for this V reason ; McUee was a , . . ■••■-••'•. . STRONG, HEALTHY, ABLE-BODIED MAN. :■■ ■ - - ' and, to all outward appearances,- presented no sign of being ill, apart from the sore throat, and apparently there was nothing the matter v/ith him. Such a condition was quite common m cases of diptheria. A person' may have the. disease m a mild form and yet be exceedingly liable to communicate infection to other people, fici lady .not, even have -a sore throat and yet communicate the disease m a very malignant form to some persons whose constitution was not so robust. Just recently there was an epidemic of diptheria at •Auckland Hospital, and many of the children were running about and playing. One child contracted the disease, and trie doctor test--ed the children .who. were, running about. Everyone of them had diptheria, although.! they were playing about and enjoying i themselves. After plaintiff had sent m his report, Dr. Purdy happened to be m the Tauranga distract, and the Clerk, of the County Council mentioned the matter to him, and asked for instructions. Defendant, who is. Chairman of the Te Puke Road BoarjU',. was present at the time, and remarked that .there was no need to take any. notice of. the doctor's letter. Defendant 'proceeded to make certain exceedingly 'disparaging remarks about plaintiff- 'evidently; having" a. very strong feeling against him on account of reporting the case. Dtj- Ftirdy warned defendant to be very Gareful A '"as" ll t6y'What v he was saying_x>r- tie would probably FIND HIMSELF SUED FOR , Dr. Purdy remarked. . that there, had been a similar case, .where a man had to pay very heavy damages- to a doctor. However, defendant persisted m his remarks, and finally told; D^r. Purdy that the best ■■' thing the Government could do was to send him to T,q.P.uke to examine Doctor Hallen to ascertain if ho was insane or not. Subsequently there was a meeting of the Tauranga County Council, and the notice sent by plaintiff came before the meeting. Defendant gdtAip, thumped his hand on the table, and cried out, "It's a damned lie and. -J. d °n't ca.re ..who. knows it." Defendant was thus distinctly accusing plaintiff of making a deliberately' untrue: statement. This reached plaintiff's .ears, and he attended at the next meeting of. the council,

I produced tnc telegram from Dr. Maghill, I and asked defendant to apologise. DefenI dant denied making the statement, whereupon two or three councillors got up ' and declared, "Oh, yes, you did say it." Defendant persisted m denying it, but then went on to justify the statement, remarking, "It's a' shame that a man m perfect health should be subjected to i such annoyance. To say that a man m ] perfect health like Mctfee was suffering from dipfchcria is uttct bosh. He is notsuffering from diptneria at all.'. 1 Therefore, concluded counsel, it had been necessary to take this action. If the doctor were to sit down under statements of that sort, having been absolutely accused of lying, it would have a most serious effect upon him iv his professional capacity. If a doctor were so lost to all . SENSE OF DECENCY AND PROFESSIONAL' HONOR as to wilfully make a false statement .a_s to a case of infectious disease, especially m a dairying district like this, it could easily be imagined what sort of a man the community would set him down as. In order to prove that lie had not been lying, he had come before a jury of his fellow-citizens to make his character ciear. After hearing evidence, the jury found for plaintiff and awarded £50 damages.