CURIOUS LIBEL ACTION.

Dunstan Times, Issue 1113, 31 August 1883, Page 4

CURIOUS LIBEL ACTION.

Somervell v. Prarson. tried in rh( Queen’s Bench division the other da) was a very nntisu d case Mr Snmer veil, O’- rather Mrs Somervell, having ne d of a monthty narse, the plaintiff a Mrs Caroline Pearson, was, on the recommendation of a ladv friend, Mrs Wilder by name, en taged in that capacity. The plaintiff had gone through medical courses of study at two London hopitals, and held their •certificates, and, indeed, it is onlv fair to say that her competence was not deni'd, nor was her remuneration, which has been %ed at ten guineas a mouth, and aU expenses paid, disputed as excessive. Abundant evidence was given by Mrs Wilder and other ladies that Mrs Pearson had shown herself to be a sHlful and agree able attendant, but Mrs Somervell's case seems to have been the unfortunate exception to her otherwise excelSent behaviour. On that occasion things seem to have gone wrong from the first She appears to have been ■disappointed at there being only two •servants on the establishment; the ■doctor wounded her professional pride hy not taking counsel *with her; sind findllv sire quarrelled with the ■cook, who admitted that she had sent up her dinner accompanied by tb u tin pepper-ox trom the kitchen, just n d of the electro plated one, which lit gather that monthly nurses are accustomed to claim as their due Wt ether di anpoinrrannt, wounded pride, ar a 'iin rieupu.box was the

principal factor in determining her conduct. may be left tor the analysis of casuists, but she certain! v seems to lave behaved very ill. The poor limy whom she attended was at death’s door from hamorrhftge. The doctor’s orders were that she should on no account he disturbed j but, according to the evidence, the plaintiff paid little or no attention to her instructions, exhibited all sorts of tempers, slummed down, rattled down Venetian blinds, talked loudly in the sickroom, and behaved generally in a way to assist, if not to cause, he dangerous relapse of the patient Among minor chaiges made against her were that she called the doctor a.mollycoddle, and accused him of ig orance of his business, fed the baby in a reckless manner, and according to the evidei ce ot the regular servants, who we, however, it should be /remembered, the natural enemies of the monthly nurse, openly avowed her intention of disobeying orders. In resist, the medical practitioner declared that a new nurse must be obtained at all hazards, and, accord iligly, Mrs Caroli ie Pea'son was summarily dismissed, teceiving a tender of live guineasiu payment of her services, which she did not accept. Mr Somer veil thought it his duty to let his friends know what kind of a pier on Mrs Pearson had shown herself to be ; so he wrote to the aunt of the ladies who had specia'ly recommended her, and desrihed as having “brutally treated the baby,” and as having behaved in a fiendish way ; while to a gentleman from whose house she had come to Reigate he asserted that “ 1 did nof believe such a c eature existed on God’s earth.” These letters contained the aheged libel. The jury practical!' found for the much vexed patei families, as they declared that the letters were written without mal ce, whicti they subsequently explained to mean “ that the language was too st ong, though the facts jus'itied it,” and assessed the damages at one farthing.