THE WELLINGTON "EVENING PRESS" LIBEL ACTION. STEWART v. ROYDHOUSE AND ANOTHER.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 3586, 29 March 1886, Page 3

THE WELLINGTON "EVENING PRESS" LIBEL ACTION. STEWART v. ROYDHOUSE AND ANOTHER.

■[Condensed from tho Li/llelto-.i Times.'] (At tho Supreme Court, Dunor'in, Friday, March 26th, before Mr Justice Williams and a special jury of twelve.) Dr Prins deposed: I am conversant with hernia and the various remedies for it. The operation for the radical cure is a thoroughly recognised operation now. That remark applies to reducible, as well as irreducible hernia. I should say that the operation is rare m New Zealand, from the smallness of the population ; but it is extensively practised m England, America, and other largely-popu-lated countries. It is not more hazardous than any other abdominal operation. In an operation for the radical cure, according to Annandale's method, I should say that a ligature was the proper means of stopping hsombrrhago at the stump. It would be wrong and inadvisable to employ the clamp, because the clamp would prevent the closure of the wound, and would cause the stump to bo dragged down. The main object of the operation is to keep the stump up, m order to close up the opening made by the hernia. The only Blight disadvantage arising from tho use of tho ligature is its liability to slip,, and that may occur m any operation under the most skilful surgeons. I would apply another ligature higor up m preference to the clamp. Tho use of tho tenacuhim is' not a desirable thing, as it would bo likely to tear tho stump.* Dr Stewart saw me about this pirticular operation beforo it was performed, but I cannot recollect how long before. I Bhould say a week or two before. Ho talked to me of the feasibility of the. operation. I referred to Annandale's work (1S80), and tho literature which appeared m the British Medical Journal. I did not eny that tho operation is not rare, but it is hazardous. All operations nro hazarduus j cutting off n man's linger or taking out a tooth is liasnrdou3. I cannot, at this moment, remember more hazardous operation?, but I repeat th-it this operation is uot more hazardous than any other. I told Dr Stewart that it was now a recognised and perfectly legitimnto operation, and I looked up authorities, which I gave him, and intimated to him that so long as he put the pros and conn of the operation to tho pnticnt, and the patient wns willing to tafco the risk, he wns justified m pcrformins the operation. T was on the staff of the Christchurch Hospital as surgeon for nineteen years altogether. Dr Deamer wns tho only ono of the present staff who was along with me. As a genc:al rule consultations were loosely attended m my lime. Not much importance was attached to them. Wlut would bo discussed woul.l be whether or not the operation should bo performed, but tho details of the operation would not necessarily enter into the discussion. Pi.v Mr Stout : I did advise tho performance of this operation. I certainly eomiiler I was justified m sitting on the Board of Enquiry, tbough I had advised its performance. £ did tell somo mombers of tho Board thnt I had b.-en consulted, but T did not tell them all. I seconded tho vote exculpating Dr Stewart. I am awaro that many eminent surgeons object to tho performance of this oucration, am! will not perform it, a; mnny eminent men will object to do m regard to new operations. 1 havb seen it recorded m n New York medical jonrnnl Hint the operation has bi'cn perf. rme j thero. It is mostly performed m Kdi'iburs-h. I say thnt the operation for the radical euro is not more dnngcrous than m any abdominal operation ; it is more dangerous thnn the operation on reducible hernia. I do not know of my own knowledge of n ease of a post mortem being held m tho Cbristehureh Hospital m the morning before (his ono on Strickhnd. [ sometimes putin a dpa'h certifiV.ifethat death resulted ftvm an operation, but oilier limes 1 do not. When tbo word operation is superfluous, we omit it. As m this or n similar case, I think the certificate should bo '-Hernia — Hemorrhage." ITnlcss thero was nn operation on the hernia, there couM bo no hemorrhage. I speak of the operation ns the seondary, nnd tho hemorrhage ns tho tertiary cause. I really cannot cnll to recollection nny individual caso of a ninjor operation having been performed nt tho Christchurch Hospital •without n consultation being first hold. Mr Stringer put m the pnper containing the libel, nnd intimated that his caso was closed. The Attorney General opened the defence and called tbe following witnesses : — Dr Coughtrey : I t» ns formerly Professor of Anatomy nt the Otago University, nnd hnve been nn assistant nt Homo. I have hoard of the operation for tbo radical euro. i li.ito performed it, but it.waa not the exact operation m this ctue. (Witness produced diagrams and models nnd illustrated to the jury tho operation.) If thoro was sharp hemorrhage after tho eno was cut, it might come from one or several veins — for instnuce, from the spcrmatio nrlery. If it were cut along with the sic it might eomo from the vessels of tho siibperi'oncnl layer. If thero were oinentum m tho sac, nn'd it woio cnt, blood would conic from it. If the spermatic vein were not cut, and nothing got into the sne, a flow of blood would not necessarily come. I should nlwnyg expect n certain amount of bleeding from a cutting of the enc across transversely, nnd I would take measures to prevent it. Would you con^iiler it right, wis,-, or prudent for a medical man, who had never (pen the operation for tho radical cure performed and liml novor performed it. himself, to perform it m. rely from his reading of books f That would depend on the circumstances m which that medical mhn was placed. For instance, if ho were m tho vicinity of whero thero wore medical men who had performed it, or who had experience m its pcrforu;nnce, I think ho should give way to those medical men. "Will you allow me," the witness added, " to qunlify that by saying unless he has prepnred himself by dissection from n dend body ?" Suppose you had been called on for thp first liino to perform such an operation, would you, beforo beginning, hnro informed your assistants whut you intended to do ? Yes ; I always inform t'-.cni of the operntion I intend to make. If I ( hink thoy do not know it, I tell them tho steps. Suppose a man is m the hospital, suffering from irrcducib'e hernia, nnd is to be .operated on, would you consider it necessary to have a consultation among the staff? I should certainly have .n consultation ; more so m the hospital than if it \f(,yo m private practice. By Mr Stringer : Sharp hemorrhage might result from nn old-cstablishod sue without of necessity including the spermatic vein. I have operated for strangulated hernia, and my patient died. I have performed the operation m Bix cases, nnd tlireo of my patients recovered. If these patients hnd submitted to the operation for the radical cure before strangulation occurred, I think the mortality would have been much less, The dissection of any ordinary caso of irroduciblo hernia is not more difficult than the ordinary case until you come to the separation of the adhesions and tho itnlation of tho sac. To Mr Stout : In the case of strangulated hernia ta which I have referred as having a fatal termination, I was assisted by Dv Colquhoun and T)a.via t and I explained to them the. operation I was to perform. I was obliged to consult with them during the operation. They agreed with me iv what I was doing. One of the greatest dangers, of tbe operation is of tho bowel bursting, and that is what occurred m this case. I had a; consultation prior to commencing the operation. In all case's "of irreducible hernia !■ would not advise an operation. Drs Hunt and Patrick gave evidence which pas of very little importance. E. Wakefield : I mew of the Christchuroh Hospital. When this article was written I did not know Dr Stewart, and had never met him to my knowledge ; I had never come m contact with him inanytvay: I had not tho slightest feeljng against him. I 'have made his acquaintance since. The article 'was In n?y paper of May'2s'th,- 18S5. 'I am responsible for it. Dr ZSTedwill never wrote the article, and knew nothing whatever about it.' ' 1 had not seen Py Nedwill for some time before it was written, nor since I had been connected with the paper. In no way'whatever did he write or instigate this article. I referred m the article to certain correspondence with the Colonial Secretary nnd Dr Nedwill. I had a conversation, with -Dr Sedwill some time before about this. I had

no conversation with him with "reference to anything being written m the newspaper. The correspondence was entirely apart from that. I .had met him at the house of Mr Beetham, R.M., Christchurch. I had a conversation with him about the management of the Christchurch Hospital, and ho told mo, I imagine, all about it He read to me copies of tho whole correspondence with the Colonial Secretary. To His Honor : This conversation took place beforo I becamo connected with the livening Press. I think this would bo about a month or two beforo I purchased an interest m the paper. Examination coutinued : I had not soon the correspondence m the Government Buildings.. I had heard the correspondence read by Dr Nedwill, and it was discussed and explained, Mr Beetham being present. I had no reason for doubting the truth of what Dr Nedwill told mo. I assumed everything ho told me to bo true. He was a recognised medical practitioner. I knew him m his publio capacity of Health Officer and Gaol ■ Surgeon at Christchurch, and lie had attended my family. I believed what he told me to be true. Did you make enquiry of some people as to this hospital business ? I did. What was your belief ns to the way m which that enquiry had been conducted ? t I thought it was very unsatisfactory, Bpenk- ' ing as a public man who has had a great deal to do with these tilings. But I had not a : very minute acquaintance with tho proceedings at tho enquiry. Did you hear anything about the certificate ! of death m tho easo ? ; Yes ; I think it wns iv Dr Stewart's cvi- . clence before the enquiry that something was i said about tho certificate of death. I could i not understand how such evidences could have been given. Is this part of tho article correct, "Wo cannot venturo into the whole matter," and • was that thu object of join* article ? i That was absolute!/ the only object. This! article was only ono iiino;n; m iiiv, all being m j the sumo diivotion, ns!drig (hut :t change ' s-liotild he made m the lnw relating to ' to liojpilala and drummling hospital reform. There were many hospital ecandule. I believe that there wero other hospitals brridi-s Christ- i church denlt with m theso articles. There j was a Eoiies of articli-p. This one was taken ! up with tlu- object of forcing an enquiry to bo j made, and of gitling the law altered. j Aro wo to understand this, that the iufoim:ilion you reci'ivc.l you behoved to bo true, and that m writing this article you wrote without any feeling towards ov against Dr Stewart, and solely for the purpose stated i:i the article ? That is absolutely true. We were careful to tnko out every name m it except Dr Nod will's; because we di 1 not wish names to appear, or uny person alluded to directly. l»r Stringer : I think Hint on June 18th '■ you wrote a furthor article on tho sumo j subject ? I canuot remember whether there wps only one aiticle or not, but I think there were sevqrul comments on it afterwards. 1)0 -you remember receiving a letter from Dr Slcwnrt'a lawyers? I cannot say that I do. Do you not remember these words— "The next thing wo heard was Unit tho Christchurch Medical Society had held a mooting to consider our aiticle, and had passed a resolution expressing sympathy with J)r Stewart, on nceount of the irritation ho lmist Buffer from Ihe terrible aril scan<l;U,.>iu :i!t ick made ujioii him by tbo Evening I'n-fs," Thai w;u the ease. You wrote that? ]am responsible for it. I s;iw it before it went into the piper, and I approved of it. To this we pro:njify n-r-lii-.l that wo had ncrcr lu-;ird of J)r Vlewml, nor ever iillr.dcd to him m any wav, t!r.t we hud niado no nitiu-k on a :yh'riv, but ha.l i::oiv!y givi-M some p:i-tii:'ilars oi mi ofi:<-i:il c.irrcs-:p-jn;!eiK-o \\\uvh hail jnsfeil i-otwoiii two fmbliu fuiictifimrh'sj on a niilti-.- of puMic business, ami that if any terrible and st-aiuin-lous attack hail been made by imvbodr on anybody, it w.is by tbo Mcll'ml '"icirfv on tho Eremni) Press-, anil I list a mooting, ostensibly of the nlwle of the medical profession of Christchiirch, was called, and by ucit mail we received a Inwvcr's loiter, by instruction of l>r Stewart. (Icn.nr.dinij the name of the writer of tho article of May 2M, mid threutrning us with an action, failing mi immediate compliance with that demand. Did you write that ? I did not write it, but I am responsible for it. It passed through my bandß m tho ofliee. Do you remember this part: "Tho facts arp briefly tln-si:. Havjug ascertained through legitimate ohann.-ls of information that v fl'andul of tho g-avest rh-irautcr ha;l arisen m connection with the internal management of the C:ristclinrch U spitnl, nnd having convine d oursi'lvos that publicity was needed, m the inlercjts of both the patients and the public, wo published on May 21st a carefully written news article, m which wo brought to light the main circumstances of the affair. Wo made no statements, and wo expressed no opinions of our own cuieerning it, but we confined ourselves strictly to indisputable fact?." Yes. Is;it on June 17th you holdly averted that what you t-t,iU\liu the article were indisputable facts ? ■ We s.iij so, ns our opinion, absolutely. That was after you bad received tho lawyer'* .letter threatening you with an action for libel? Ycg. When you received that lawyer's letter had you made any further enquiries before you permitted the second article to appear ? I supposo 1 did. We were quite convinced that it was our duty as public journalists to see the thing through. We imagined that tho Medical Sceioty were endeavouring to gag us. 'Jhat is tho explnimtion of that article. So thnt you reiterated your previous stntoinent without niakingany furl her enquiry ? Yes; we ro-coiisidcrcd tho wholo matter, nnd my partner went over it carefully, and we came to the conclusion that this was an attempt by tho Medical Society to gag the public Press, and to shut up this Holpitul matter. After consideration, we determined that it was our public duty to prevent that. Somo considerable time had clnp^cd since the first nrticle, and this was tho first intimation I had received of any object ion to that article, or of complaint about it. That cmuo from tho Modical Society, and wo did not recognise that they bad any business to interfere m tho matter. How long before this second article appeared did you receive intimation, and you knew of any objection ? fConlinued on fourth page.J

I did not receivo any objection direct. Wo saw tho resolution of tho Society publißhod m tho papers ; we had no word from Dr Stewart or any ono directly concerned that wo had m any way injured him. I therofore took it that this was an attompt by tho Society to gag us. Tho cross-examination was lengthy, but comparatively unimportant. Mr R. Beetham and W. Letford wore also examined. Dr Nedwill : Before this case of Strickland's I never saw the operation for tho radical cure of irreducible hernia performed. I had performed the operation for strangulated hernia, Tho former operation is by no means a common ono ; the medical profession are not agreed on it. It is attended with danger. I was invited by card to attend tho operation on Strickland, but at that lime I did not know what tho operation was to be. I attended, and went into tho operating room. I went out, and on my return I found Dr Stowart m the act of beginning to operate ; and as Dr Micklo was prepared to assist I did not take his place. I did not object. I simply declined. I simply said, "Oh no, go on." Up to this time I had no idea of the nature of tho operation. Dr Stewart picked up a gold of the groin, transfixed it, and came down on tho sac. I then asked if it was a reducible hernia, and I received an answer m tho affirmative I wished to know whether it was reducible- or irreducible. The sac wa3 then opened, divided upon a diretor, and a largo mess of omentum c.ime into view. Dr Stowart tried to push it back through tho abdominal ring, and found ho could not do so. Ho then passed his finger into the ring and pulled down a large miss of bowel and omentum. Having dono this he pushed it back into the abdomen with considerable difficulty. It was pulled out again, and finally pushed back again. He tried again to get tho omentum out of the sac, and succeeded m getting part of it separated. Ho next lengthened tho incision towards the portion of the sao next the scrotum. lie then tried to get the sac dissected from tho surroundings, and m dissecting the coverings outside the sac, a large lump of veins cr.ino into view These were pulled about with his fingers, m order to divide them. I then made my first suggestion, that if he contnued to do that, he ■would have troublesome hemorrhage, nivl advised that it should be tied with double ligatures, and then divided. That suggestion wi:b not attended to. A layer of fascia n.3 then turned up round- the sac, am), I think, a second layer also. At this time there was a mass of omentum m the sue that bad been paitially separated. Tho sac itself, and these layers of fascia were taken by him mid twisted up tight. He looked at it, and then asked for a needle, with a double li^atuiv. The needle went through it. lie cut it so cloeo to tho ligature that instan'ly the part was covered with tila-id. 'JJiis whs sponged out, but tho bloud came very fa?t, Dr Stewart trying to secure tho point* of blood by torsion. The stump had retracted, and it was down at the bottom of the wound. I saw that it could only be securely tied byusing a tttnaculum, and ligaturing bulow. Tho tenaculum is used only fur the temporary purpose of passing the li.'iilurc beneath. My suggestion was not adopted. A lig lture was fiddled (I can use no other expression) over the top of the stump, but I could sco that it ■was uttorly impossible for a fulficient hold to be taken to apply it properly. I then said, "I feel perfectly certain thnt you will have haemorrhage returned hero. 1 would advise tho stump to bo clumped into the cxtermil ■wound, so that if haemorrhngo returns you ■will have it under control." I believed at that time that the ' skin Haps were being brought together m the ordinary way by sutures. I then wi-nt away fnwn the tlospi'al, but before going returned to the suVj t -ct of the clamp, and said I felt .iure that ought to bo used. I would not have 'recommended a clamp if tho ligatures had been snllicient. My suggestion about the clamp was made because I felt certain thai, the ligatures ■wero imperfectly tied. I did not sco any suture passed through the abdominal wall, the stump, and tho outer wall At the conclusion of the operation I dd not think the patient would recover. The witness then related die steps ho subsequently took to obtain an investigation. He said he had nothing to do with the writing of the article, and the first lie knew about it was by a reference m tho Ti.MAur Heuald. Dr Ned will's cross cxAiuina'iun was postponed till tho following day. (By Telegraph.) Dc.nedin, March 27. Tho caso Stewart v. lioydhouso was continued. Dr Nedwill was cross oxiinined at some length. Ho stated that at the end of the operation on Strickland, he said he felt su e the stump was not properly ligatured, and advised the use of a clamp, ile left the room more shocked than nettled. Ho had forced an enquiry into tho hospital management some six years ago, and as it turned out Hint false certificates had been given, ho had never been forgiven. He thought Mr Wakefield, being a good speaker, would do justice to the case m the House, and that was why he sought him. The Attorney-General addressed the jury, stating that tho case was a test ono as to whether a journalist was to bo allowed to pursue his avocation untrammelled, or whether tho Press was to bo degraded. Unless the jury found that the artiole was ■written maliciously, it did not matter what they thought of the issues put to them. Mr Stringer followed, and stated that the heading of the article "manslaughter or ■worse" — indicated its contents. Mr Wake-field-had written without making due enquiry. Mr Justice Williams then summed up. He said that if a person published intentionally matter defamatory of another, ha published libel, and it must be taken to be malicious without thero was just eauso of excuse. The article was beyond doubt defamatory, and unless there was just cause, plaintiff was entitled to recover. The jury were unable to agree, and after tho expiration of three hours, a verdict of three-fourths was accepted. Nine answered all tho issues m favor of plaintiff, giving ono shilling damages. The jury unanimously recommended a rigid inquiry mo tho management of tho Christchurch Hospital. The question of costs was ordered to stand over.