LIBEL CASE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VIII, Issue 2257, 30 March 1886, Page 2

LIBEL CASE.

STEWART Y.ROYDHOUSa (United Press Association.) Dunedw, March 2j, Jn fcho Ciiso of Stowart/V. Roydhouse and another, tho cross-examination of Dr Ned will was proceeded with, and was very lengthy. He stated that the operation was performed very unskilfully, and Dr m it was 11 iedug|b]p instead of an- irreducible hernia. If he was asked whether the patient was "mangled," ho should say yeß. He should also say therewere no precautions' taken to prevent tha man dying from hemorrhage-riot' sufficient, at any rate. At the'coriclueioh• (if the operation' ho Baid, '" \ feel convinced that the-stump is not properly legated, and I again advise you io use a clamp." . He then left the rodni more shocked than nettled. Witness afterwards discovered blood •> oozing from the wound, and his :opinioii .of courso was that hemorrhage was going on.' The hemorrhage, was, however not BBce&aiity trim. "Eire qutti%' bit

blood he saw coming away certainly, was,-' " not dangerous! He thought the bleedini? X ' was wrong but there was uothineito, for his interference with another: man's 'W case. The fact of his being health officer fornix years accounted for the squabble .:' which had taken place five or sir y'ea'ri)' ago. He forced an enquiry by a. Royal Commission into the management of the Hospital, It turned out that it was the custonrto give false death certificates, '.' and he had never been forgiven for this exposure. Mr Wakefield being a good speaker, witness thought ho would be able to do the matter justice in the '' House, and that was the reason witness sought him. "The Attorney-General then addressed tho jury, and put the true issue as boms; whether a journalist was to be allowed to criticise tho management of a hospital, and not as the other side wished to say, a question as to whether Dr Nedwill or Dr Stewart was right. If they came to the conclusion that Dr Nedwill was wrong, all the greater reason for free criticism on the stylo in which the Hospital was conducted. There was need of, the free air of criticism in theso institutions, as they would become tho haunt of everything that was evil. This case was really a test as to whf tlier a journalist was to be allowed to pursue his avocation un- ; trammelled, or whether the Press of New Zealand was to be degraded, and was not to venture to indite anything unless it ~*U ' had everything upon affidavit. They had*" not to consider, whether every doctor who • had been mentioned in the course of evi-v denco had dono everything that was light. They had simply to ask themsolves this question—Was not Mr Wakefield, with all tho knowledge he had, justified in penningas bitter an article as ho ; could, and one that would rouse a feeUng of humanity in the breasts of even the residents of Christchurch 1 Mr Stringer, addressing the jury, said he would ask. his Honor to direct the jury that where distinct and specific allegations were, made in an article, it was necessary for ' tho writer to establish them as true, especially where the charge was a criminal offence. The heading of the article sufficiently indicated what ita "' contents meant-" Manslaughter, or worse." Liberty of the Press was one thing and the license the other. Mr Wakefield had far passed all reasonable bounds in ids unbridled criticisms. Th»w was no doubt a grave error of judgment had been made in dispensing with the consultation, but, had it been held, the result must have been the same. Dr Nedwill had sneaked out of tho operating room to come-back Justin time to criticise \ what had been done. Mr Wakefield had '» written without anything like inquiry, fonO he admitted that there were parts of tho evidence which he had not read, 'Mr ■* Wakefield evidently wanted to make a A good start with his newspaper, and having ■ rX no doubt received a very good advertise- ': [ ment by his libellous article, he could well afford to pay for it. His Honor, in summing up, said that if a person, pub- ' lished intentionally matter defamatory of another, he published a libel, .and he published it maliciously if he published it without just cause or excuse. It must be taken to bo published maliciously unless there was just cause or excuse for the publication. The article was beyond doubt defamatory of plaintiff, and unless there was just cause for the publication, plaintiff was entitled to a verdict. The writer apparently accepted DrNedwell'a ' statements as gospel, and made but slight additional injuries. In his opinion a journalist had no privilege over his fellow citizens, and it could not be said that any person may say or write of anyone else anything he honestly believed to bo true without being liable forthe consequences., The most important function of a jourhM list was unsparingly to expose abuses, Dtijh if ho departed from criticism and forraulated a speciffc charge against anyone, then he was liable, unless ho could show ; that the ohargo was true or that it was an 'iL honest and reaßmiablo inference from the. ifP; conduct of the person charged, The jury v ' were unable to agree, and after the expiration of three hons his rlonor accepted a verdict of three-fourths, The jury answered all the issueß in favor of plaintiff, viz.. that it was a libel; that it was not justifiable by reason of truth or fair comment ; damages, ono shilling, They recommended a rigid inquiry by Government into tho Christchurch Hospital management; the question of coßts.to stand over.