ALLEGED DEFAMATION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVI, Issue 189, 9 February 1914, Page 2

ALLEGED DEFAMATION.

A WOMAN AND HER CHILD. Cl.ill DAMAGES AGAIXST A DOCTOR. By Telegraph— Press Association. Auckland, Saturdav. A claim for £51)1 damages for alleged defamation occupied the attention "of ■*lr. .Justice Cooper and a jury of twelve at the Supreme Court. ' Plaint ill'. Rachael .lane Wilson, wife of a l'apavoa tanner. (Mr. ./. |{. Reed, K.C., ivit.li him Mi'. Parker), alleged that Dr. Edmund Spraguc Dukes, of I'aparoa, had published a letter in the Northern Waima paper, in tin* course of which occurred the following words:- "Again, a mother takes away the, last chance of tier child s lile by refusing to nurse it ijuief, foi fear of infection.These words, if was claimed by plaint ill', referred to herself, and were false and malicious, Defehdant. who admitted that (he words referred to plaintiff, set up the defence of justification and privilege, lie was not represented by counsel, * Mr. Reed, in opening the case, said the passage complained of was published 111 a newspaper in the Northern Wairoa district, and was contained in a letter written in reply to attacks made by certain people in connection with the management of the local Medical Association, but this dispute had nothing to do with plaintiff. The facts of the case Were that oite of Mrs. Wilson's children was suffering from sore throat on duly 11, 11)10.' This was looked upon as practieallv nothing, but on the following day the illness developed to such an extent that it was deemled advisable to send for a doctor. Dr. Dukes arrived about 9 a.m., and, at ln's reipiest, the services of a country nurse | were secured. Plaintiff was not told by the doctor that her child was suffering from diphtheria, but learnt that fact later on from one of the members .of the household. The mother nursed the child throughout the day, and the doctor returned about 0 p.m. A few minutes later the. child was dead. Nome | little afterwards the father-in-law of plaintill apparently formed an opinion that the child's death was due to neglect on the part of the doctor. One day the doctor and the father of the child met and discussed the statement." of the father-in-law, and then the, doctor made statements alleging that the mother of the child had neglected it, and the father promptly struck him. Reference was made to the matter !n the form of a letter written by the doctor oil December 12, 1!>1|), but ilien the matter was dropped for over three years. On September 10, 1(113, in the course of a letter concerning the local' Medical Association, the doctor dragged in the words on which the action was based, and which the residents of the district understood to refer to .Mrs. Wilson, but the doctor went further, and sent the letter round the district in the form of a circular. Plaintill' denied that she had refused to nurse the baby when told to do so by the doctor on the evening on which it died. Several witnesses gave evidence thai they had read the letter the paper, and had no doubt that the extract referIred to ilrs. Wilson.

Defendant, in his evidence, said he had received a casual note from the father of the child asking him to attend to it lie examined the child and found tlie case hopeless, and told tlie father his opinion. Further, lie left instructions that the child must he mirsed. .1 n-t about dusk lie started out*again to w the child, arriving, he believed, about (i p.m. Upon his arrival he found the child lying in bed, in a position that would have been satisfactory had the child been comfortable, but' the child was holding out its haiula to its mother, and was trying to sit up. Thereupon lie told the mother to take it up, but as ■ she took no action when he repeated tlie command again and again, he told her just what he thought of her. Then lie did what he could to amuse the child to keep it fjuiet. lie left the room to talk to the father, and five minutes later the child died. Four witnesses called by defendant stated that until the appearance of the letter in the newspaper defendant had said nothing disparaging concerning Mrs. Wilson. (.'lard Victoria Andrews, who was lady-help in the Wilson household, wa* called by Mr. Reed for the purpose o! giving rebutting evidence. This witness stated that the mother had carried out the doctor's instructions, and had nursed the sicli child practically ail the day. Late in the afternoon it had wanted to lie down, and the mother, acting upon the doctor's instructions that the child must be humored, had allowed the "child to do so. ■Dora Wliarfe, an ex-eountry nurse, who attended to Mrs. Wilson's child, considered that even-thing had been done for tlie child that could have been done. Referring to the incident that occurred goon after the doctor's arrival, tlie nurse said that the mother, wit'i- | ®ut delay, had lifted the child up as the doctor had ordered, and had never to avoid infection. This closed the evidence and the case was adjourned until the following morning, Auckland, List Might." •lane Wilson was awarded XISO damages in the suit in which she claimed £.>ol damages from Dr. Sprague Dukes, of Paparoa, for alleged defamation in alleging that she had refused to nurse her child for fear of infection.