Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price 1d. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1886. The Evening Press Libel Case

Wairarapa Standard, Volume XIX, Issue 1820, 14 April 1886, Page 2

Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price Id. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1886. The Evening Press Libel Case

On the conclusion cl the trial of the libel action, “ Dr Stewart v the proprietors of the ; Evening Press,” we commented on the subject, pointing ont the inconsistency of the verdict given by the jnry. That verdict was to the effect, “ that the article complained of was a libel; neither justified by reason of the allegations of fact being true, nor by reason of their being fair comments on the conduct of the plaintiff in his capacity as one of the Christchurch Hospital staff.” Tet the jnry, while thus finding in favor of the plaintiff, only awarded him one shilling by way of damages. Since previously writing on the subject we have read the full report of the trial which extends to forty columns in the Canterbury ' Times. This report indicates, to a certain extent, the reasons which caused the jury to award Dr Stewart merely nominal damages. The evidence given at the trial, while clearly exonerating Dr Stewart from the charges of unskilfulaess, brutal treatment and butchering of the unfortunate man Strickland, at the same time indicated that he had been guilty of gome errors. Dr Stewart held no consultation with his colleagues before performing the operation on Strickland, nor did he describe before band the nature of the operation to the other surgeons present. Now, the operation was a highly dangerous one, and Dr Stewart ought both to have held a consultation and made the required explanation so that the patient might have had the benefit of all tbo surgical talent and skill available. Besides this, Dr Stewart disregarded a request to delay the post mortem examination of the body for the investigation of the medical staff, bat on the contrary performed the work himself. Finally Dr Stewart gave—apparently through mistake—an accurate statement of the cause of Strickland’s death. Apparently, the jury considered that a medical man who had committed ,suob errors was not entitled to substantial damages. The evidence also showed that ttbe administration of the Chrietohuroh Hospital was bad, and that circumstance influenced the jury in giving Dr .Stewart only nominal damages, because be,* as one of the medical staff, was partly responsible lor the mismanagement. But allowing for all this, it must, on the other band, be admitted that the article published in the Evening frees was one of the grossest libels ever penned by an utterly reckless public writer. Mr Wakefield founded bis article entirely upon the statements made by Dr NedwiU, and wrote and published the article without making that careful further enquiry into the subject which any conscientious and right-principled journalist would have done. The punishment following upon this reckless action on the part of Mr Wake» field has been very heavy. The question of the costs of tfie action has been argued before a judge in chambers and deojded in favor of Dr Stewart, bo that the proprietors of the Evening Press have been adjudged to pay alt the costs en both sides—Dr Stewart’s as well as their own. These costs will amount to a very large sum. The legal proceedings extended over a period of ten months. One legal firm 'pas employed in Wellington and two in Christchurch, fbere were all sorts of preliminary skirmishes in the Supreme Court at Christchurch on an application for a change of venue, and of course these things cost much money. Then there was evidence Hf"" by a commission at Christchurch, and, finally, there pae a five day’s trial at Dunedin with heavy retaining fees to the Attorney-General and other leading counsel, end pecuniary " refreshers ” besides lor each day the trial lasted. Altogether, when the whole of the lawyers’ bills have come in, it will probably be found that the sum total of costs which the proprietors of tbs Evening Press have to pay will not be less than £7OO or £BOO -this sum of course including the costs of the plaintiff, for which the defendants are liable. Ordinarily, a verdict lor one shilling dots not carry costs, but the judge, finding that the verdict was for the plaintiff, on all the issues, very properly allowed him his costs- At the close of the trial the Evening Press commented on the result as being ” a B r eat and glorious victory ” for the paper. Well, peihaps it was a vietory—although we cannot ©xftotly see why. But a lew more victories of that costly kind would utterly smash up a fat stronger journal than ont contemporary the Evening Press. For the result, Mr Wakefield is entirely to blame. He ought never to have written and published an article of the kind referred to, without miking the most careful previous enquiry, Had such enquiry taken place, the inaccuracy of many of Dr NedwiU e statements would have been made manifest, and the article 'complained of would never hare seen the light. As the case stands, Mr Wakefield and bis co-partner are paying the penalty of his /Wakefield’s) oarlessness and recklessness, and the general verdict of the public, as regards the former, is " serve him right.”