A DOCTOR’S EVIDENCE.
Dunedin, June 5. The question whether n doctor was hound to speak in Court cropped up at the Supreme Court during the hearing of a divorce petition. Counsel for the petitioner had subpoenaed Dr. Riley as to respondent's condition when examined in the hospital. When asked as to the result of the examination, witness said: “I am willing if the patient consents, hut do not think 1 should divulge what passed without permission.’’ Mr Justice Sim said that there was a distinction between a communication between a doctor and a patient and facts ascertained on examination. Privilege extended to anything a patient communicated, but there was no privilege regarding the facts observed by a doctor on examination.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MH19230609.2.3
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Manawatu Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 2591, 9 June 1923, Page 1
Word count
Tapeke kupu
120A DOCTOR’S EVIDENCE. Manawatu Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 2591, 9 June 1923, Page 1
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Manawatu Herald. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in