APPEAL COURT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 137, 2 August 1911, Page 6

APPEAL COURT.

AN INTERESTING CASE. (Per Press Association.) Wellington, August 1. In the Court of Appeal to-day the case of Lucena v. the National Mutual Life Association of Australia, is being heard. The case raises some interesting questions as to what extent communications made by a doctor to a patient or a patient to a doctor in course of consultation arc privileged from- disclosure in Courts of law. The question turns on the construction of section 8 (3) of the Evidence Act, 1908. The defendant company tendered evidence, which was objected to by plaintiff, of information gained by observation during examination, and later during an operation m plaintiff. Mr Treadwell appeared for the defendant company in support of an application to admit the evidence, aud Mr H. D. Bell for the plaintiff to object.