£6000 DAMAGES.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 752, 4 May 1933, Page 17

£6OOO DAMAGES.

Big Sum Awarded Sydney Medical Man. ACTION FOR LIBEL. (Special to the - star.") SYDNEY. April 20 After a hearing extending well over a week, Dr R. V. Storer, of Macquarrie Street, has been awarded £6OOO dam- 1 •v> es ,, a suit against “ Smith’s Weekly lor libel. The case arose out of certain articles published by Smith’s ” in October, 1931. in which it was charged that Dr Storer’s name should be removed from the Medical Register as unfit to practice: chiefly on the ground that he had extorted large sums from patients bv telling them that thev were suffering from infectious disease, and that his diagnoses had subsequently been contradicted by other well-qualified medical men. Plea of Truth. Ihe attack on the doctor was very f 0 r S Iyj 1 y j worded and he claimed £20,000 damages. Smith’s” put in the usual plea of truth and public interest.; and then counsel in a long and exacting cross-examination, tried to show that Dr Storer’s reputation, in regard to his personal relations with boys, and the authorship of a certain medical book, had already undermined his professional standing. But the Court held that this was wholly irrelevant to the point at issue, and the attempt to discredit the doctor in the eyes of the jury was thus a failure. Afr Windege, appearing for Dr Storer, naturally made a great deal of the point that “Smith’s” had suborned “ patients ” to go to Dr Storer pretending that they were suffering from infectious disease, whereas they were. entirely free from it, and he maintained that nothing material in the way of evidence could be adduced by “ Smith’s ” in support of their libellous statements. Mr Justice Street agreed with this view of the case, and therefore directed the jury that as the plea of justification had failed, they must find for the plaintiff. But the learned judge gave the jury careful instructions as to the assessment of damages. He reminded them of the high material value of a medical man’s reputation—as a matter of fact Dr Storer’s income, when the libel was published, was about £SOOO a year—and that serious injury would naturally be inflicted on any professional man by charges such as these. But Mr Justice Street further pointed out that in such a case what the jury must consider is not what they think about the person concerned but what ; sort of reputation he actually possesses. Question of Reputation. “ A man’s reputation,” said the Judge, ‘‘is the estimation in which he is in fact held by the people who know him; not the estimation in which he would be held if everything were known about him.” This distinction carries much force, and no doubt it was largely on this ground that the jury, recognising that “ Smith’s ” had made practically no attempt to substantiate the libellous charges, gave Dr Storer a verdict for £6OOO. Moreover, Mr Justice Street refused to grant the stay of proceedings applied for on “ Smith’s ” behalf, and the case which aroused a great deal of public interest will thus stand as a valuable precedent for the interpretation of the law of libel.