The Timaru Herald. TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 1886.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 3587, 30 March 1886, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 1886.

The jury m the libel case, Stewart v. Roydhouse and another, which was concluded on Saturday night, returned a three-fourths verdict for the plaintiff, and assessed the damages at one shilling. The question of costs was allowed to stand over for discussion m chambers. It was a remarkable and perplexing termination to a trial which had excited a good deal of interest m most parts of the colony. Mr Justice Williams commenced his charge with the following statement of the law bearing on the case : — " If a person publishes intentionally matter defamatory of another, he publishes a libel, and he publishes it maliciously if he publishes it without just cause or excuse; generally, if a person does intentionally an act that injures another person, he does that act maliciously. The first question, therefore, that the jury m this case must consider is this : Is the writing itself defamatory, and was it published intentionally ? If bo it must be taken to have been published maliciously, unleßS it appear that there was just cause or excuse for publishing it. If we look at the article of which the plaintiff complains, we can see beyond doubt that it is, m its nature, defamatory, and that it is defamatory of the plaintiff. Unless, therefore, it appear that there was just cause or excuse for publishing it, the plaintiff is entitled to the verdict of the jury." At the conclusion of his summing up, the judge put the following issues before the jury: —

1. Is the article complained o£ a libel P 2. Has its publication been justified (a) by reason of the allegations of fact being true ; (&) by reason of these allegations being fair comments on the conduct of the plaintiff m his capacity* as one of the hospital Btaff ? 3. If it is not justified from either of the above reasons, what damages is the plaintiff entitled to recover ? Those issues were answered m favour of the plaintiff; that is to say, the jury found, (1) that the article was a libel, (2) that its publication had not been justified either by proof of the troth of the allegations, or on the ground that they were fair comments on the conduct of the plaintiff m his capacity as one of the hospital Btaff. In our opinion, the verdict was, up to that point, right. We have certainly no desire to see journalism unnecessarily trammelled, for the bondage of the press means the destruction of one of the moat substantial safeguards to public liberty. But, on the other hand, a reckless and licentious press is itself a nuisance end a tyranny. We need not say very much of the article which formed the groundwork of the action. It was clearly as full of libel as an egg is foil of meat. It was headed, "Revolting disclosures ; Manslaughter or worse;" and its contents, which professed to give accurate particulars about an operation which had been performed m the Christchurch hospital, plainly indicated Dr Stewart as an operator who had been guilty of the most shameful bungling, who had mistaken the character of the patient's disease, and who was responsible for his death. The weight of the evidence given at the trial was strongly against the truth of the allegations. It is a just and wholesome law which, m such circumstances, lays a press writer open to an action for damages. But, having signified our concurrence m the answers given bythe jury to the first two issues, we find a difficulty m understanding how the answer to the third was arrived at. Let our readers bear m mind the accusation — " Manslaughter or worse ;" let them ponder on the manner m which the charge was amplified and embellished m the article ; let them consider the standing of the plaintiff, and the enormous injury the libel was calculated to do him m the practice of his profession ; and finally let them remember that the jury found that the accusation was not proved to be true, and that the defendants had no justification of any kind for tbe publication. How was that one shilling verdict arrived at ? What kind of libel would it have to be to entitle a man to recover two shillings, or, let us say, £10 ? What villainous false accusation could be fabricated and laid before the world, which would, m the eyes of that Dunedin jury, be a quid pro quo foi £100 ? The fact is that the one shilling cannot be defended on auy grounds that should have been taken iuto account by the jury. The two first issues having been decided m favour of the plaintiff, the third should have given him very substantial damages. He was either entitled to that, or the preceding issues should have been decided against him, and the defendants have been absolved altogether. We are afraid that the jury, m dealing with the final issue, must have taken into account matters, which, at that stage of the proceedings, were entirely irrelevant. In no other way can we find a reason for the one shilling as a solatium for a charge of manslaughter, aud for a reckless and heartless attack upon the professional reputation of a medical man of high standing. The jury knew that the plaintiff bad committed a breach of the hospital regulations m not summoning the staff to a consultation before undertaking tbe opei-ation which terminated fatally ; and knew also that the caase of death shown on the face of the certificate was not the true cause, and that the erroneous entry was made m deference to an opinion expressed by Dr Stewart, who afterwards saw reason to arrive at another conclusion. There may have also been a strong suspicion that hospital management m Christchurch was not what it should be, that there had been a disposition to burk inquiry, and that Dr Stewart, as one of the staff, ought to bear his share of the responsibility. Those matters might have been fairly considered when the first two issues were under review, but ought not to have been taken into account when assessing the damages. Let us hope that the trial, and all the unpleasant disclosures which it involved, may have the effect of drawing more attention to hospital management not only m Christchurch, but throughout the colony, and may lead to improvement by which all who use those institutions may benefit.