Public Notices
Thanks.
I beg to return my sincere thanks to the employes of Messrs Hay and Wishart, of Invercargill; and likewise to Mr Hay for the many kind services rendered to my late son Robert during his illness.
ISABELLA STENHOUSE. Queenstown, 24th July, 1882. -Southland Times, 27/7/1882.
It is always painful to speak of the dead. In the case with which I am about to deal — the decease of young Robert Stenhouse at the Hospital — the dread king claimed his victim at a very early period of life, and under circumstances that point to the neglect of those duties which are due to our fellow men, if only for the sake of common humanity. With reference to the circumstances which led to his being taken to the Hospital I have nothing now to say. They are to form the subject of a trial in the Supreme Court; But the manner of his death — in an institution which is supposed to open its doors to the sick and suffering, and to supply those comforts and attentions which cannot always be had except in the homes of well-to-do people — I must and will speak. If I go too far, I appeal to the public to stand by me; for I shall not be guilty of uttering one word which I do not believe to be absolutely true. This poor young fellow, then, far from home, but with many friends around him, who had come to think well of him through his upright, persevering, and deserving character, was ordered to the Hospital, where more might be done for him, through the combined wisdom of the medical gentlemen of the place than could otherwise be while in a friend’s house or in lodgings. It is unnecessary to add that an operation was performed upon the young man, when his internal complaint was found to be a very serious one. Shortly after the operation some of Stenhouse’s friends went to see him, but they were not allowed into the ward in which ho was lying — as it afterwards transpired — at the point of death. And now comes the terrible part of the story as told to me by, I may say, reliable witnesses — the manner of his death. He was lying on his bed quite exhausted by the trying ordeal of the operation, and there was no one near to do aught for him. He wished for a drink and there was no one to give it to him. He was cold; but there was no one to make him comfortable. He then essayed to rise, and with the despairing strength that often presages the near approach of death, managed to get out of bed and crawl to the fire. In front of it he sat and shivered, and then, being unable to sit up any longer, crawled back to bed. Into it he managed to creep; but the effort had been too much for him, and sinking back upon his pillow he expired. This is the story as it has been told to me. The principal witness lies at rest under the shadow of the everlasting hills of his native place, Queenstown, so that his testimony cannot be given until that day when all secrets shall be laid bare; but there are those who can, and I hope will, speak, let the consequences be what they may. The cruelty of excluding the friends of the dying man from his bedside in his last moments is bad enough, but the manner of this poor young fellow’s death is a disgrace to our humanity, and a blot upon the institution in which he breathed his last in misery and pain. While penning the above it has occurred to me that only last week there was a peculiar occurrence in connection with our Hospital. A young man, while in an almost dying state, was removed to the Park View Hotel, and died very shortly after he was carried there. This happened without the knowledge of the house surgeon. The question naturally arises — “Why was it done ?” -Western Star, 9/8/1882.
INVERCARGILL.
(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.) The Hospital Committee has still nothing to say as to the truthfulness or the reverse of the statements given publicity by me with regard to the treatment and death of young Stenhouse in that institution. Either they are true or false, and the Committee should say officially whether they are one or the other. I had what I considered very good authority for what 1 wrote; and now feel mere firmly convinced than ever that “where there was so much smoke there must have been some fire.” Until my words have been disproved I shall — in the interests of common humanity — reiterate the statement that the manner of Stenhouse’s death was shocking — in fact, unspeakably horrid. If there had been no truth in my story, why did not the Hospital Committee deny it in toto? They would, doubtless, have been only too glad to grasp the opportunity so to do, but it now appears that they are in the position of being unable to say one word in defence, and the foul blot still rests on the institution. Who, I should like to know, unless possessed of means and influential friends, would trust themselves within the walls of a sepulchre? Instead of pretending that the doors of the Invercargill Hospital are ever open to the sick, the maimed, and the suffering, it would be a charity to write above the portal in the largest letters possible, that blood-curdling “sign” from Dante’s “Inferno”: —“All hope abandon ye who enter here!”
Almost apropos of the above I might draw attention to an underhand piece of work which has been going on ever since the death of Stenhouse, and which is at present being pushed forward to injure the reputation and ruin the practice of Dr Lewis. At first, publication was given by the “Times” to a letter which Dr Lewis considered libellous — said letter laying the responsibility of Robert Stenhouse’s death at the door of the doctor, and the latter, very properly, entered an action for damages. The matter, however, did not rest here. A case was trumped up against Dr Lewis — when he asked for his fee — in which it was sought to be proven that the medical gentleman had not only failed in the discharge of his professional duty, but that through his neglect the woman whom he was attending in her accouchement had died. The charges were found to be utterly without foundation, and the chagrin of a certain section of the local press, which was represented in court both by its manager and a special reporter, may be better imagined than described. If by any possible chance Dr Lewis could have been proven guilty of the charges brought forward as a reason why his professional fee was not paid, the facts would have been a “big item” in the case of libel. But the doctor came out with clean hands, and so other means had to be adopted to still more completely cripple him, and take away his character as a trustworthy and efficient medical adviser. This is now under way. An agitation is visible upon the usually calm surface of Oddfellowship. Some one is at work. The doctor must begot rid of — right or. wrong. What better way of doing this than to encourage the work of scandalising? The thousand and one glib tongues ever ready for the "carrying” of so delicious a morsel as the traducing of a doctor’s private and public character, have already been hard at work, and, as the snow ball increases in size by being rolled along upon the surface of the material which constitutes its bulk, so have the scandal-mongers succeeded in adding — at the expense of truth and honor — to the mass of falsehoods and fabrications which are to be hurled in the teeth of their intended victim and his friends at the first favorable opportunity. Let me venture to hope that these people will be frustrated in their designs, and that their evil longings will be like the curses of the wicked, and “come home to roost.” From patient enquiry I have ascertained that Dr Lewis has ever been attentive to those who seek his advice and that under a brusque manner lies a solicitous heart for his patients, be they rich or poor. In the case of Robert Stenhouse, it is capable of demonstration that not only was Dr Lewis not to blame for his early demise, but that all medical man could do was done. If, in the face of these facts, men can be found who will wilfully set themselves to work to support a few evil disposed persons who would like nothing belter than the removal of Dr Lewis from the position of Lodge Medico in the I.O.O.F., then the sooner they cease to be Oddfellows the better. If any one thing more than another should deter them from the step which I am advised they are encouraged to take, it is the recollection of the words uttered by one who has since been called to his eternal rest: — "If we are sick, why we have a good doctor who will soon make us well again.” -Western Star, 2/9/1882.
The Southland Hospital.
A special meeting of the Committee of the Southland Hospital was held at the hospital last evening for the purpose of inquiring into the charges which have past by a writer in the Western Star newspaper. Present - Messrs W. H. Hall (president), W. H. Y. Hall, Mullany, J. Brown, J. Hare and A. Black (secretary). Dr Galbraith attended to answer any questions which the Committee might wish to put.
The Chairman said they were met that evening to take into consideration certain statements made in the Western Star re the management of the hospital. One or two members of the Committee thought it desirable that a special meeting should be called for this purpose. As the correspondent had gone out of the town to make his complaint and also used no name, he (the Chairman) did not think it was desirable on their part to take any notice of him. He had always been anxious when any complaint was made in a fair and legitimate way to have it investigated, and if the complaint had come in signed by any of the subscribers or by a friend of the institution he would have been the first to have it inquired into, but in this case the circumstances were entirely different. The charges were utterly false from beginning to end, and there being no formal complaint before the Committee he did not think they ought to take any action in the matter. The Chairman concluded by calling upon the secretary to read the following reports made by Dr Galbraith in reply to the charges alluded to: —
In a late issue of the Western Star, the the Invercargill correspondent makes a charge against the management of the Southland Hospital, that a patient in that institution, while on his deathbed, suffered from cruel neglect; he describing the patient, when dying, as having "no one near to do ought for him. He wished for a drink, and there was no one to give it him. He was cold, but there was no one to make him comfortable," &c., &c, "and that he breathed his last in misery and pain." With the exception of the fact that the patient died I have no hesitation in asserting that the above quotation is false in every particular detail; and this I shall now proceed to show by the evidence of witnesses who are still available to verify the facts.
John Collins, who is still a patient in the hospital, says, I remember the Sunday evening before Stenhouse died. At nine o'clock in the evening he complained that his feet were cold, and immediately a bottle of hot water was brought and put to his feet. Between 11 and 12 he complained that his knees were cold, and the night attendant warmed a piece of flannel and wrapped it round his legs. At this time he was able to sit up in bed and help himself to a drink from a box standing by his bedside. Shortly afterwards he seemed restless, and got up and walked to the fire without any assistance, and sat by the fire warming his knees. There was a good fire in the ward at the time. After sitting there about five or ten minutes he went back to bed again and lay quietly. Shortly after this the night attendant came into the ward, and again warmed the flannel and put it round his legs. This must have been about half past 12. I lay awake till the night attendant came back at a quarter past 1, but I heard nothing particular, and I was very much astonished to hear the night attendant say that the man was dead. I could not at first believe it, but I got up and held f a looking glass before his mouth, till I saw he was not breathing. I then knew that he was dead.
W. H. Tuson corroborates the above statement. He was present and saw Stenhouse walking from his bed to the fire. Had the patient required any assistance, he (Tuson) or Collins would at once have given it, in the absence of the night attendant. There was nothing but the greatest kindness shown to Stenhouse.
Samuel Stratton saw Stenhouse sitting at the fire warming his knees, and recommended him to go back to his bed for fear he should catch cold. Stratton then went to sleep, and heard nothing, more till he heard that Stenhouse was dead, when he was much surprised.
The Invercargill correspondent of the Star makes a point of the fact that his friends were cruelly excluded from his dying bed. In this statement there is both a suppression of the truth and a suggestion of falsehood. In the first place, he was visited by Mr Wishart, foreman of the foundry in which he worked, on the morning before his death; and a number of other friends who wished to see him were only excluded by my orders, out of consideration for the patient. Surely no one needs to be told that it is often the duty of medical men to forbid the visits of friends in critical cases. Such a case this undoubtedly was, and I should have most certainly been blameworthy if I had permitted the visits of all the friends who wished to see him.
— I am, &c, James Galbraith, M.D. -Southland Times, 22/9/1882.
INVERCARGILL.
(from our own correspondent,) “A combined attack right along the line” has been the order of the day for a week past, and the Invercargill correspondent of the “Western Star” has had such a tremendous “wigging” that it is a wonder he still lives and writes. I will notice my opponents in detail. To “Ex-patient” is due first place. I cannot help admiring the way in which he has disputed every inch of argument with me, and placed before the public as many facts as he has been enabled to gather. What he lacked in matter of fact he made up in vigour; I will not accuse him of falsehood. If he will look back over my letters, and read them calmly he will be unable to find one sentence in which I asserted “that the inmates of the hospital are inhumanly treated.” From the very first I plainly said “This is the story as it was told to me.” When Robert Stenhouse died, all sorts of rumors were current as to the manner of his death, and his own personal friends were among the number who believed that he had not been properly cared for. I heard the story. It was vouched for to me, and I — in the interests of common humanity — gave it publicity. Was this wrong? Did I not give the committee, the doctor, and all others connected with the hospital an opportunity that they would otherwise have lacked, by placing these reports in public print? Was it not better that the rumors and assertions current both in this town and in the country districts should become public property in a legitimate way, than that the managers of the institution should be stabbed in the dark? The same kind of stories — but never from my pen —were circulated with regard to Miss Hansen and the man Frew. Somehow or other these reports have been placed to my credit. I most emphatically protest against this action on the part of “Ex-patient,” the editor of the “News,” and the Hospital Committee. All I ever wrote was in reference to the death of Stenhouse; and, the question “Was the whole truth told in the report of the treatment and death of Christina Hansen?” I had no other desire than to see the hospital cleared of these accusations. I could refer to many instances of my having spoken strongly on behalf of the hospital — an institution which should be looked upon as one of the greatest blessings of our civilised life. Wherein, then, have I erred? All the bombast and ignorance displayed by certain members of the Hospital Committee at its special meeting to discuss matters concerning myself and themselves will not alter the one little fact that I gave to the world certain reports which had gained currency and credence, and asked for an investigation. I may not be “worth powder and shot,” as the limb of the law would have it, but I can at least defend any position I may take up without descending to snobbery. But how shall I deal with the other loud-mouthed faultfinder? How worthily the position of Hospital Committeeman sits upon the shoulders of such a mass of vulgarity. He considered it would be demeaning the committee to take notice of the “Star” or its correspondent! A person of his stamp can scarcely demean himself — it is not possible. When he is able to lay claim to the same desires for good as actuate the “Star’s” correspondents, then he may walk abroad fearlessly, rejoicing in the consciousness that he has done some few things at which the finger of scorn cannot point. To the other gentlemen of the committee, if they desire it, I offer a willing and full apology — though apology there should not be from me. But I offer it because I believe they have shown a desire to have a matter which was in doubt put in a proper light before the public. I have now no reason to doubt that extra attention was paid both Robert Stenhouse and Miss Hansen, and I am only very sorry that the report of Dr Galbraith was not published sooner. With the reports regarding Frew and others, which were forwarded to the “Star” and the “Evening News” by some other correspondent, I have nothing whatever to do, and desire it to be distinctly understood that I have no sympathy with them. My remarks were in the interests of suffering mankind, prompted by the warmest of feeling for their sorrow and pain, and not one particle of malice entered my mind while carrying on the correspondence. I intended to keep it up to the bitter end; but the storm has passed. Satisfactory explanations have come from the parties who had a right to make them long since, and I trust that any ill-feeling which may have been engendered will now quietly pass away, and those who were instrumental in spreading the false reports will take heed lest they commit the same error again. -Western Star, 27/9/1882.
Public Notices
THANKS
The undersigned wishes to offer her heartfelt and sincere thanks to the employes in Mr J. Hay's foundry, Invercargill, for the kindness shown to her in her recent affliction, and likewise for the handsome marble tombstone and fence sent by them, and erected to the memory of her son, and their late fellow workman, Robert Stenhouse.
ISABELLA STENHOUSE. Queenstown, 5th Dec., 1882. Southland Times, 7/12/1882.
CIVIL SITTINGS.
G. A. LEWIS V. SOUTHLAND TIMES CO.
The plaint was one for general damages for libel alleged as contained in the following letter, which appeared in the Southland Times, of July 25th last, viz.:
— A Case for Enquiry. — To the Editor.— Sir, — Would you kindly grant me space in your columns for a few lines. It is with sad regret that I write; but I feel that some one is to blame for the gross carelessness and indifference shown towards the young man Robert Stenhouse, the subject of this note, and an engineer of great promise, who breathed his last in the hospital on Sabbath night, the 16th. He was a member of one of the Oddfellows' societies of this town, and had been complaining for nearly a year. He had asked advice from the society doctor, who told him that there was nothing wrong with him, and had put him off from time to time until it has ended fatally. Some weeks ago he asked the advice of another doctor, who told him at once what his malady was, and to go to his society doctor and tell him what he had said. The consequence was, the society doctor ordered him to the hospital to undergo an operation, and all that could be done for him there was done, but of no avail. I hope the society, of which deceased was a member, will look into the matter and investigate. I am of opinion that that valuable young life might have been spared a while if his case had been properly attended to at first. — I am &c., Humanity. — Invercargill, July 24th, 1882.
For this the plaintiff sought to recover the sum of £5000; averring loss of practice and injury to his profession in consequence of the publication thereof. The defence denied the material allegations, and pleaded that the contents of the letter were true and that it had been printed and published without malice, and was a fair and a bonafide comment on a public man, and had been published for the benefit of the public.
Mr Wade, with him Mr D. D. McDonald (Dunedin), for the plaintiff ; and Mr Stout, with him Mr Finn, for the defence.
The following special jury was empannelled: — W. Craig (foreman), H. Hislop, W. Bulleid, W. Bews, W. Paisley, A. Baldey, J. A. Birch, J. H. Irvine, W. Hewitt, H. Wilson, R. Cleave, Macleod Smith.
Mr Wade, in his opening remarks, referred at length to the evidence to be tendered on behalf of the plaintiff, averring that Stenhouse had been properly treated whilst in the hospital, and that death was caused by the bursting of an internal tumor, and was in no way attributable to the tumor on which Drs Lewis and Galbraith had operated. The pleas filed by the defendants, he said, were of a very voluminous character, but divested of their technicalities, simply meant, in the first instance, a denial of the whole of the allegations made by plaintiff, and in the second, while admitting a certain portion, pleaded privilege — that was to say that although the letter had been printed and published, this had been done without malice aforethought, and at the same time was merely a bona fide comment on plaintiff's actions as a public man and for the public benefit. It was a queer kind of benefit to the public, this blasting of a man's character and prospects in life. The defence at the same time averred that the statements were true, which, supposing that they were proven to be utterly devoid of veracity, was merely, an aggravation of the injury already inflicted on plaintiff — a point he should like the jury to specially bear in mind in assessing the damages. On the law of the case he need merely point out that the question of would doubtless be dealt with by the Court, whilst that of truth would be a point for the consideration of the jury. As to the effects of the statements in the letter, no man would for one moment deny that so long as they remained unrefuted, the plaintiff's practice would go to the dogs. The damages had been laid in so large a sum because they were unliquidated damages; and must so remain until the jury assessed their extent. He would ask them, however, to remember that they had been materially aggravated by the attempt made by the defendants to defend their action.
Evidence was led as follows: —
George Alfred Lewis, the plaintiff, deposed — I am a medical practitioner, residing in Invercargill and have been for some time the medical officer to the Loyal St. George Lodge of Oddfellows. I produce the Southland Times of the 25th July last, printed and published, by Robert Gilmour for the SOUTHLAND TIMES COMPANY. The paper produced contains the letter, contained in the plea. There is no truth in the charges contained there. Do not know who "Humanity" is. Knew the deceased Robert Stenhouse, referred to in the letter, and am the medical officer alluded to. The first occasion on which I saw the deceased was, in May, 1881. He was living in a little hut near Hay's foundry. I attended him as medical officer of the St. George Lodge. He was suffering from measles, an uncommon complaint for a man of his age. Attended him to his own satisfaction, and cured him. Saw him some little time afterwards, a month or so, when be came to consult regarding a slight cough which might have been a result of measles. Treated him for colds then. He never complained of anything else. Next saw him on the 13th March, this year. He said he felt weak, but there was nothing much the matter; he thought he had strained himself at work, in lifting. Asked if he felt pain in any part, and he replied in the negative. Prescribed the proper course of treatment. He gave no indication of any symptoms of tumor at that time, nor were there any symptoms pointing thereto. He might have been suffering therefrom, very probably he was. No other medical man could have discovered it, any more than he (plaintiff) did. Next saw him on the 9th June, when he called and complained of a swelling in his chest. Examined him and found he had got a hydatid tumor in the region of the liver, which is simply an abnormal gathering of matter in the system. It is not a common disease in New Zealand. On the average only one case per cent. proves fatal. It requires specific treatment, and the usual practice is to tap it when it becomes of extended size. The proper remedy, when the tumor extends and approaches the exterior is tapping. Told Stenhouse that an operation was necessary, that it was nothing of a nature to frighten him, and that a consultation with another medical man was desirable. It is always .better to have a consultution on a case of this nature. Would have been of the same opinion had he been a private patient. Did not tell him the disease he was suffering from. He did not acquiesce in the proposal, as he seemed to hesitate, thinking it was hardly necessary. Gave him a prescription, and told he would have to come back in a day or two in any case. He gave as another reason for declining that he could not leave his work. He would not consent. He came back in about three or four days. Arranged to meet him at the hospital on the following morning. Did so, and had a consultation with Dr Galbraith, the house surgeon. Both of us agreed that the operation of tapping was necessary, and might as well be done then as at any other time. Stenhouse was undressed and put to bed, and the operation was performed by me, Dr Galbraith assisting. Took about three pints of fluid from the tumor, the operation only occupying a few minutes, and it was properly performed. The proper course for the patient to pursue was to stay quietly in bed for several hours after, and he was advised to do this, and stop there until he would be seen again by the house surgeon. Did not go in the evening, as attendance was not at all necessary. Subsequently learned that the patient had left the hospital. This may have been the next day, but can't say positively. Am certain it was within a day or two. It was not necessary for me to attend him again. He was a patient of the house surgeon from the moment he was admitted. Knew he was in good hands, and that there was no reason to go and see him next day, or the day after either. Did not know his address. Next heard of him on 27th of the same month, when a message to go and see him was sent. Got it sometime in the evening and saw him the next morning. That was a sufficiently early visit, as I knew that there was nothing urgent. Saw him in North Invercargill. Had great difficulty in finding him. Found him rather feverish as though a good deal of fluid had collected in the tumor since he left the hospital. Attributed the feverishness to suppuration in the tumor. There was nothing alarming in it. He complained of loss of sleep. Gave him some pills; at the same time advising him to come to the hospital again, or some handy place in town, as it was impossible to attend him there if the tumor required tapping again. He said he would and would let me know. Got another message from him a few days afterwards to see him in another part of North Invercargill. Had some trouble in finding him. He was in pretty much the same condition. A further accumulation of fluid had taken place. Said to him to "come to the hospital; I'll go and get you a bed there myself." He was admitted into the hospital on the 13th July. Saw him on the day following, having proceeded there in consequence of a notice I received from the house surgeon. Dr Galbraith and myself examined Stenhouse, and we thought it necessary to tap him again. There was no immediate hurry, but we thought we might as well do it as we happened to be together. We extracted two quarts of fluid. After the operation we left him quietly in bed. Saw him again on the following Sunday (he had been in the hospital during the interim) in company with Drs Hannah and Galbraith. We gave Dr Hannah particulars of the treatment and he agreed that it was proper, and recommended further tapping, as he was of opinion there was more fluid in the tumor. We tapped him again but only got a very small quantity of fluid. He was seriously, although not dangerously ill, and quiet being necessary we excluded visitors to other patients, although it was a visiting day. We left him comfortable, and I learnt the next day that he was dead. Am of opinion that death was not attributable to the tumor for which we treated, but to the bursting of another tumor, to which we could not gain access, near the heart or in the lungs. We believed that there was more fluid there, because there was a dullness on percussion. Had no reason to look forward to his death that night. Attended him in every way that was possible. -Southland Times, 14/12/1882.
The above is added for its information as to Robert Stenhouse's cause of death. The trial took a few days and the jury, strangely, found that there was no libel but also found that there were damages to be recovered - at the amount of one farthing.
The inconsistency of their verdict produced the following exchange:
...His Honor: If they would reconsider their verdict, he thought it would be as well, as those inconsistencies would only lead to further trouble and expense.
Mr Stout asked his Honor to state the effect of the Jury Act for the benefit of the jury.
His Honor, in compliance, pointed out that under the provisions of that Act, in the event of the verdict not being unanimous, that of three-fourths of the jury would suffice.
The Foreman: If the question of costs could only be considered, your Honor?
His Honor: But unfortunately that is not the case, gentlemen, although I, for my own part, do not see why the question of costs should not be one for consideration of the jury. I don't think I can inform you on the subject.
The Foreman: Oh! but there's a work inside, your Honor, which states that we can be informed — (Laughter).
His Honor: Yes, but you know how you have heard that doctors differ, and the case is the same with regard to lawyers, and although you have found a work which says you may be informed, there are also other works which speak the other way.
The jury's verdict was amended and no damages were awarded.
No comments:
Post a Comment