COMPLAINT OF SLANDER

Taranaki Daily News, 14 August 1930, Page 13

COMPLAINT OF SLANDER

CLAIM MADE BY DOCTOR INSURANCE SOCIETY DEFENDS. NURSE'S ALLEGED STATEMENT. By Telejireph—Pre»6 Assn. —Copyright. Wellington, Last Night. Remarks alleged to have been made io one' of his patients by a nurse employed by the Australasian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurance Society, Ltd., were relied upon by Dr. Richard Walter Richards, Wellington, in a slander action brought by him against the society in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr. Justice Ostler and a jury. The defence admitted that the nurse had called on a patient in the course of her employment, but it was denied that she had made the alleged remarks or any words capable of- bearing the same meaning. Even if the words had been used they were incapable of bearing the alleged slanderous meaning and they were not made by the nurse in the course of her employment. As a further defence it was urged that any remarks concerning the -doctor were made honestly and without malice and on a privileged occasion. Plaintiff gave evidence of attending Mrs. Bell and taking a swab to test for diphtheria. No result was obtained. Before this he had prescribed for tonsilitis, and the treatment was successful. When he heard of the visit of the nurse he took the swab, afterwards writing to the insurance society for the name of tile nurse. She called, but he did. not wish to discuss the matter with her.

Mrs. Bell, who had a child insured with the company, said an agent and a new superintendent called at a time when she was suffering from a sore throat and eruptions. After a discussion regarding her Husband's insurance witness mentioned that she was not feeling well, and it was suggested that the society’s nurse should be sent up. Witness said that she was already receiving medical attention.

The nurse called the next day and said that she was from the society. She told witness that she looked ill and asked for a spoon. She did not use it. however, to examine her throat, but sat down and said: “I don’t want to frighten you, but you have got diphtheria.” \Vitlles’s was advised by tho nurse to go to hospital for isolation, but she ijefuscd to go. The nurse asked when the doctor was coming again, and on being told that he was expected in the evening said, “You will be dead and cold by then.” When she was informed who the doctor was the nurse said, “Oh, him! Like a few more of his cases. I have never had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Richards, but when I see him I will tell him what I think of him”

After the nurse had left witness got Mrs. Little, who was also living in the rooms, to ring up the doctor. He camo up and reassured her about her throat. Witness and Mrs. Little told him what the nurse had said. The next day he called again and took a swab of her throat.

Violet Gwendoline Little gave corrobative evidence. She considered that tho nurse’s remark regarding sending Mrs. Bell to hospital was not a, suggestion, but an order. Mr, Bunny moved for a non-suit on the grounds that the words were not defamatory, that the occasion was privileged, that there was no evidence of malice, that’ the nurse’s expression of opinion was not in tho scope of her employment, and that she was not acting under the authority of the defendant society. The question of a non-suit was reserved.

Nurse Mabel Blathwayt, employed by the society as visiting nurse, said she had never known Dr. Richards. When she saw Mrs. Bell she looked very ill. Witness advised her - to go to bed and get a doctor. She said she had had a doctor and said the medicine had done no good and her husband'had gone to get something from a chemist. The nurse realised that dhe woman had no confidence in the doctor and’ she advised her to go to hospital. She denied emphatically making the alleged statement.

The case was adjourned till to-morrow morning.