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

Date:
[1852]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

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 Physicians of Edinburgh. The original may be consulted at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.

    23/56 (page 23)
    ' now referred to was favourably noticed, &c.' I am perfectly ■willing to put in the first edition of Mr. Lizar's book. Then come to the fourth article, &c. (reads). In what respect does it allude to the pursuer, otherwise than in respect to the subject raised by his own book? Then article five—' Notwithstanding, &c. (reads). Such is the statement which he makes. Now, I say, that within the limits of this record, it is impossible to exclude me from bringing in the matter which the pursuer refers to as bearing on this. Then comes the statement of the defender, in which he gives some parlier transactions, to which I shall afterwards refer. Then comes the piiblication of this book; and all this I mean to found upon, in reference to the attacks made by the pursuer on the defender. Then the statements contained in the first edition of this book I mean to give in also. It is said, that there is no plea, that there was provocation. Is it possible that the defender's letter can be intelligible without reference to the dispute between the par- ties ? Observe, the defender says —' I have been long entitled to ' consider you, as far as I am concerned, beyond the pale of pro- ' fessional respect and courtesy.' I suppose it can be shown, that the animus and meaning of the defender is totally different from what the pursuer alleges, and is that a circumstance that should not go to the jury ? The question put to them is —' Whether the ' article falsely, calumniously, and injuriously, represents and holds ' out the pursuer as a person of disreputable character in his pro- ' fession;' meaning that he had an animus against the pursuer. We deny the interpretations which the other party put u]3on it. The Court — Your argument seems to come to this, that you mean to show, that the defender did regard the pursuer as beyond the pale of professional respect and courtesy — that he, himself, did so regard him. If the pursuer does not make out the libel, he does not gain his case. Observe, that you represent him as beyond the ' pale of professional respect and courtesy.' That necessarily im- plies that you so regarded him; and then you wish to go back to a much earlier period, I presume to 1840. Solicitor-Gexeral —My position is this, that the pursuer's conduct towards me has been sucli as malics me regard liim as not entitled to courtesy and respect. Sujipose I can show that to the .iury ? The Court — Supposing tlic words had run thus — 'I have louff