ALLEGED SLANDER

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20466, 5 April 1938, Page 8

ALLEGED SLANDER

4.30 O’CLOCK ” EDITION

HOSPITAL MATRON’S SUIT QUARREL WITH DOCTOR ••REFUSED TO GIVE ORDERS’* (By T«legraph. —Press Association) . AUCKLAND, Tuesday Alleging libel and slander, Isabella Jane Paddock, formerly matron of the WaJhJ Hospital claimed £475 in the t Supreme Court yesterday from Dr. Archibald Jenkins; medical superintendent of the hospital. In the plaintiff’s statement of claim it was alleged that on July 13, 1037, defendant fai*el> and maliciously wrote or spoke to members of the Waihi Hospital Board and others that the matron seemed Quite unable to acquire the requisite nursing standard or to properly undertake the management and discipline of the institution. He also said, so it was claimed, that in the theatre the matron did not appear to appreciate the meaning of the terms “aseptic” and “teirle,” and by her actions on three occasions rendered certain of the operations unsterile by mishandling Instruments and operators, thus delaying the operations. Although the superintendent had repeatedly asked her to familiarise herself with the theatre Instruments she still showed almost entire ignorance of them and delayed operations when called upon to supply certain instruments. Other allegations were also made. The defence pleaded privilege and claimed that the statements were not defamatory, "Caused Trouble" When the case resumed to-day Fred Raddlngs. a member of the Waihi Hospitable Board up to the time the control of the institution was vested in the Thames Hospital Board, said at the Surf Club’s ball Dr. Jenkins, Mrs Paddock and two sisters from the hospital were present at different times. Witness remembered Mr. Jenkins telling the board he was very satisfied with the way the matron and staff were eondurtin* the hospital. It was after this that the doctor began to complain about the matron. The doctor caused a lot of trouble with the members of the board and they understood that the Sisters Black were doing a lot of the work of the matron and that the doctor would not give the matron orders. Witness said the doctor's behaviour towards the matron was not what tt should have been from a medical superintendent to a matron and witness had told him he would have to alter his tactics. Witness had voted against the board’s resolution expressing appreciation of the work of the matron, among others, at the hospital. He did this because her appointment had not been approved by the Minister of Health. Matron's Evidence Continuing her evidence which had been interrupted to enable two other witnesses to be called, plaintiff said when she was appointed matron, the trained staff at the hospital was practically a new staff. Witness mentioned the occasion when Dr Jenkins told her she knew nothin* about nursing and that he did not want her to accompany him round the wards. Witness mentioned the charges brought against her by the doctor, which charges, she said, were without foundation;