A CURIOUS LIBEL ACTION.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 1036, 31 August 1883, Page 4

A CURIOUS LIBEL ACTION.

/Somervell y. Pearson, tried in the Queen’s Bench division the other day wa§'a very unusual case. Mr Somervell, or rather Mrs Somervell, having need of a monthly nurse, the plaintiff, a Mrs Caroline Pearson, was, on the recommendation of a lady friend, Mrs }bf name, ’ engaged in that capacity. The plaintiff had gone through medical courses of study at two London hospitals, and held their certificates, and, indeed, it .is only fair to say that her competence was not denied, nor 1 was her remuneration, which had been fixed at 10 guineas a month, and all expenses paid, disputed as excessive. Abundant evidence was giverj by, Mrs Wildet and other ladies tha? Mrs Pearson had shown herself to be a skilful and agreeable attendant, but Mrs Somervell’s case seems to have faqqn,the.'Unfortunate exception to her otherwise excellent behavior. On that occasion things seem to have gone wrong from the first. She appears to have beep, disappointed at there being only twO servants on the establishment; the doctor wounded her pro-. feSsfehaPpndO by not taking counsel with her ; and finally she quarrelled with the cook, who admitted that she had sent up her dinner accompanied by the tin pepperbox from the kitchen, insteaiof the electro-plated one, which we gather that monthly nurses are accustomed to claim as their due. Whether disappointment, wounded pfidß, pr a tin pepperbox was the principal factor in determining her conduct, may be left for the analysis ot casuists, but she certainly seems to have behaved very ill. The poor lady whom she attended was at death’s door from haemorrhage. The doctor’s orders were that she should on no account be disturbed ';'.but, according to the evidence, the plaintiff paid little or no attention to her instructions, exhibited all sorts of tempers, slammed doors, rattled - ddwn Venetian blinds, talked IqfidW in the sick-room, and behaved in a tvay to assist, if not to patient.]' Among other minor charges made against her were that she called the- doctor a molly-coddle, and accused hith/Of 1 ignorance of his business, fed thtf laby m i reckless manner, and, acijotdipg'.to the evidence of the regu-lac-Sfrvpnts, who are, however, it should be remembered, the natural enemies of the monthly nurse, openly avowed her intention of; disobeying orders. In result,-the. medical practitioner in attendance 'declared that a new nurse mqst be obtained at all hazards, and, accordingly, Mrs (Caroline Pearson was sunimarily dismissed, receiving a tender of. five, guineas in payment for her services,' tohich she did not accept. Mr Somervell thoughb it his duty to let his friends, know what kind of a person Mfo f£as|gn hid. shown herself to be; so fie wrote to the aunt of the ladies who had specially recommended her, and described; as having “ brutally treated 'the baby,” and as having behaved in a fiendish way; while to a gentleman from whose house she had conte to Keigate, ■he asserted that “ I dlffbot Belifeve such a creature existed on God’s earth;” These letters contained.., the .alleged, libel. The jury practically found for the much-vexed paterfamilias, as they declared that the letters 3 were 1 written without malice, which they subsequently explained to mean , language was too strong, though the facts justified it,” ancT’asiessed the damages at one farthing. -