MEDICAL EVIDENCE

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 364, 26 May 1928, Page 10

MEDICAL EVIDENCE

IMPORTANT POINT RAISED QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE A medical man’s evidence is admissable as to his own observations, but he cannot speak as to anything that the patient has communicated to him. This was the rule laid down by Mr. Justice Blair at the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. The case in question was one where Robert McDowell, of: Dargaville (Mr. Webb) petitioned for a dissolution of his marriage with Elien Elizabeth McDowell on the ground of misconduct. Harold Kuhrie was named as co-res-pondent. The petitioner stated that he left respondent in February, 1925, and they had since lived apart, and it was in January, 1927, that an incident forming the ground for the action occurred. In proof of misconduct evidence was given by petitioner that he had only seen respondent on one occasion after he had left her, and on that occasion he was accompanied by his brother. Evidence in support of this statement was giyen by petitioner’s brother.

Medical evidence was also called by petitioner, but was ruled inadmissable. In giving judgment, Mr. Blair quoted the case of Russell v. Russell in 1924. In the case of Holland v. Holland in 1925 it was held, however, that the rule in Russell v. Russell, which did not permit the giving of evidence by either the wife or the husband which would effect illegitimacy, did not apply to a still-born child.

He considered there was sufficient evidence of misconduct, but not sufficient proof against the co-respondent,.

A decree nisi was made, but as the case against the co-respondent had not been proved no costs were allowed against him.