DAMAGES CLAIMED

Southland Times, Issue 22732, 7 November 1935, Page 6

DAMAGES CLAIMED

VETERINARY SURGEON.

PARAGRAPH IN NEWSPAPER.

(Per United Press Association.) Blenheim, November 6.

Evidence was taken in the Blenheim Magistrate’s Court to-day in the case in which H. E. Martin, veterinary surgeon of Christchurch, is sueing the Christchurch Press for £25 as damages for alleged injury to his professional reputation, arising from the publication of a paragraph which, he claimed, reflected on his skill and abilcase centres round the treatment of the well-known racehorse Vintage, belonging to Mr D. W. Westenra of Dunsandel. Plaintiff alleges that it was well-known he was treating Vintage and that he had diagnosed a “bruised sole,” but on August 23 the Press published a paragraph as follows:— “No further lameness. For the last two week’s Vintage’s track work has been gradually increased and he has been standing up to the test very satisfactorily. He has had further treatment, but this time to the shoulder, since when he has not shown any signs of his former lameness.” Plaintiff took exception to this paragraph for the reason that it was a well-known fact that he was attending to the horse and was treating it for foot trouble and not shoulder trouble, and that the paragraph left the impression that he had been mistaken in his diagnosis and treatment, and that as soon as appropriate treatment to the shoulder was applied, the horse recovered. Accordingly plaintiff’s solicitor asked defendant paper for a withdrawal and publication of an explanation, but the Press replied that it was absurd to regard the paragraph as defamatory and pointed out that plaintiff’s name was not mentioned therein. John Joseph Corry, a well-known racing owner, said he was conversant with Vintage’s troubles and plaintiff had treated his own horse Korero for similar trouble very successfully. On reading the paragraph now complained of, he came to the conclusion that plaintiff had incorrectly diagnosed Vintage’s complaint and on September 2 wrote to Martin expressing the hope that he had not made the same mistake in regard to Korero, which was by then in Australia having recovered so well as to justify the expense of the trip. He pointed out to Martin that in the circumstances he would have to have his horses in Australia continuously under a vet’s eye and would' expect Martin to meet the expense. “Apparently,” concluded the letter, “one is only a chopping block for all considered opinions, even if you can definitely tell anyway.” This concluded the Blenheim evidence and the case will be resumed in Christchurch.