Illustrations of medical evidence and trial by jury in Scotland.

Date:
1855
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Illustrations of medical evidence and trial by jury in Scotland. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    57/66 (page 55)
    limb, which would imply much more clearly and strongly such an examination as would satisfy him that there was a fracture. But Professor Syme, not reading carefully the words on which he intended to comment, says he (Mr Glover) falsely alleged that he privately and surreptitiously examined the limb. Well, then, he undertakes to prove that; and his third issue is—~u whether, in a letter ad¬ dressed by him (Mr Glover) to the Lord Provost, he attempted to justify the granting of the certificate, by falsely alleging that he had taken an opportunity privately and surreptitiously to examine the limb,” etc. To this Mr Glover answers—u I never made the state¬ ment that I examined the limb before the nurse and clerk came; and, therefore, when you allege that I falsely state that, you impute to me another falsehood.” Now, gentlemen, that is the case. If you wish me to read the evidence, I shall do so : but I confess I do not think it turns in the least degree on the details of the evidence, further than I have mentioned. I may repeat, that in every case of slander, where the issue is solely, whether the defender falsely and calumniously stated so and so, the falsehood is assumed, unless the defender undertakes to prove the truth of it. If, therefore, the de¬ fender has not satisfied you as to these three issues which he has taken, the pursuer is entitled to your verdict, unless that you think that the meaning put upon his three issues, at the close of each of them, is not a correct deduction from the words complained of. They are, however, taken exactly from the terms of the words complained of, for instance, in the first issue, a whether the defender stated that the pursuer had granted a false certificate, inasmuch as he therein expressed an opinion on a matter as to which he had no means of knowing anything,” these are exactly the expressions of Mr Syme which are complained of. And, therefore, you will probably hold that there is no doubt that is a correct deduction of the meaning of the words used by Professor Syme. In the second issue, also, the complaint is in the very words of Professor Syme—viz., that Mr Glover did not examine the patient, whom he had declared on soul and conscience that he had examined. Then, in the third issue, the complaint is also in the words of the defender. Now, then, gentle¬ men, that being the nature of the case, I confess I think that it has been treated on both sides as a far more serious and important case than it appears to me to be either one way or another. For my own part, while I cannot at all wonder that Mr Glover should come into Court with an action of reparation for this, perhaps to get that