Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

WHEN DOCTORS DIFFER.

AN ACTION FOR SLANDER,

Dunedin, Last Night. An action for an alleged false and malicious publication was concluded in the Supreme Court to-day. Dr. Stewart, of Milton, was the plaintiff and Dr. Biggs, of Balclutha, the defendant. It was claimed that at a meeting between the South Otago Hospital Board and a deputation of Milton residents, Dr. Biggs made certain statements reflecting on Dr. Stewart’s professional capacity and that plaintiff had been injured in his character as a result of the publication of the statements. Plaintiff claimed £SOO damages. The defendant admitted that he spoke the words, but said that this had been done in discharge of his duty as medical superintendent of the Board at the Board’s request. They were bona fide without any malice towards the plaintiff, and in the honest belief that what he said was true and in reply to a request of the deputation that they, as representing the Milton branch of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union and various friendly societies, should be informed of the reason why the Board had declined to reinstate the plaintiff as medical surgeon in the Milton public hospital. After lengthy evidence, extending over two days, a special jury found (1) That the words complained of by plaintiff were defamatory of him in his profession; (2) that the words were not true; (3) that the defendant did. not honestly believe them to be true, and (4) that when the defendant spoke the words he was actuated by malice. Plaintiff was awarded £25 damages.

Further consideration of the action was adjourned and at a subsequent date the question will be argued as to whether there was evidence of malice to go to the jury.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MH19270818.2.9

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3679, 18 August 1927, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
286

WHEN DOCTORS DIFFER. Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3679, 18 August 1927, Page 2

WHEN DOCTORS DIFFER. Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3679, 18 August 1927, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert