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.

    58/66 (page 56)
    disclaimer which he has not got from Professor ISyme ye , on other hand, that this could be such a serious and weighty mju y Mr Glover—a thing hurled out by Mr Syme in the course of some vehement discussion of such a question asthis-I confer* that the lio-ht in which I view it. Mr Glover has brought nobody to shot that the thing was much attended to, or that these ^P^sions i - nroner as they might be, and libellous as they might be, produced Tv Tmpression on the mind of anybody. Perhaps some people nfmht ascribe it to some particular mode of writing on the part the8 defender, which takes away a good deal of what ns pro essiona authority gives him. The Dean says that Ins eminence m his pro fession makes the injury all the greater It may ^ but really, looking over these libels of Mr Syme s, I doubt very much whether the medical world would think them so extremely nijuno to Mr Glover, or whether it paid that attention to the pursuer not unnaturally may suppose it did. Still, if you are a fied that they bear the meaning which the P^uer put upon he and if the defender has not proved the issues which lie has hrLstifeation, it will be your duty to give such damages as you think this sort of reckless writing against Mr Glover requires in the circumstances. On the other hand, where any personal moti on the part of Mr Syme against Mr Glover is so very strong y an IS»<■ * Glov„ *• “ ” »t» ”raSj“ iTt;«“«“ “■ of another wk.fh. w,s jo«ifiod_ if you find it so-in doing. But the first question for you is- Do you find for the pursuer or defender ? If for t le pursuer, feat negatives the issue on the part of the defender; and you wiU then proceed to assess the damages, giving such an amount 1 , „il. oral reasonable j.,' o»gb* » g>™ » • which VOU find one doctor abusing another. Yon will keep view however, feat there are three issues in justification and you must consider, not merely whether one is proved but whether all the three are proved. If you should think one of them Fov ed I mean for the defender-or two of them proved, and not the ot , or the third and not fee other two, then you must state so distinctly , if you are satisfied feat the defender has not proved ^ *ie3 then vou may simply find for the pursuer, with such a sum to damans as you think fit. You need not divide the damages on