John Lizars, esq., surgeon, against James Syme, esq., surgeon : Monday, 26th July 1852 (before the Lord Justice-General and a jury).

Lizars, John, 1787?-1860.

Date:: [1852]

Credit: John Lizars, esq., surgeon, against James Syme, esq., surgeon : Monday, 26th July 1852 (before the Lord Justice-General and a jury). Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

51/56 (page 51)

$* considered Mr. Lizars to be a man of disreputable character, and that ‘ he was in a quarrel with every body.’ This is really the case. Mr. Lizars’ character is not at issue here, because Mr. Syme has disclaimed from the first any offensive meaning. Let me advert to the 37th article of the Closed Record. Your Lordship will see there how the case is put. Mr. Lizars is not impeached in his professional character. You have heard what was said in his favour, and I hope he will long enjoy the character that has been given to him. I consider that Mr. Syme was bound to explain why he does not put on the gloves with Mr. Lizars, and have a fight with him, and that is the reason of the statement com- plained of. He does not say that any body else may not have a row with him. In regard to vindication of character, nothing of the kind is needed, for his character was never intended to be assailed; this I disclaim, and those who conduct the journal disclaim it also. You have Mr. Syme earnestly engaged in his own duty, which was that of recom- mending to the public the important discovery he had made, and we have him here merely explaining why he has not answered Mr. Lizars book on the subject. The case is one of this description, that I conceive you are bound to take the milder meaning given to the terms, and not put words in Mr. Syme’s mouth that he never intended to utter. I submit to you, that this case is not well-founded, and that the words here set forth are not libellous. The Lord-President'—I have now to make some observations to you, with the view of aiding you in arriving at a conclusion in this question. The question put to you is in the third page of the paper which is in your hands. It is not disputed that the matter printed in the previous page was published, and it is not disputed that Mr. Syme is the author; that he admits. And the pursuer says, that the publication of the passage so often read, does hold him out as a person of disreputable character in his profession, and as neither respected nor entitled to respect in the medical profession. If the passage does hold him up in this respect, there cannot be the slightest doubt that that is a serious imputation, and entitles him to reparation. \ ou must hold here, that the pursuer is not a person of a disreputable character in his profession. There is evidence before you, that he is not a person of that character, but quite the re- verse. The question is, Does the passage so present him ? If the defender had admitted that that was the meaning of the passage, and he intended to justify it, he would have set forth, that the pursuer was a person of that character, and not entitled to respect and courtesy. He has not done so ; and it must be held that there is no ground for it. The ques- tion you have to try is, Whether the defender did so represent him? The defender says, ‘ I stated a totally different thing ; and lie recurs to the passage on page 2 so often read, and lie tells you, that he meant by$