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]
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.

    53/56 (page 53)
    * was addressed to tlie Editor of the London Medical Gazette. It is stated to you, by evidence uncontradicted, that the observations made on the defender’s discovery, or supposed discovery, to which some medical men attach importance, by the pursuer, were such as required notice. The defender was entitled to vindicate his own reputation and his own discovery, and to expose the erroneous nature of the attacks made upon him; and he was entitled to state it in the most favourable light. The matter had got into that position, that it was expected he would make some reply. In that position he comes forward with this letter, and he says to the Editor, ‘ you say a fierce paper war has arisen between the ‘ two Edinburgh Professors, Syme and Lizars.’ The defender was en¬ titled to say, c that is not correct; I have not addressed a single word to ‘ Mr. Lizars on the subjectand he was also entitled to give his reasons for not addressing him. On the last passage nothing is founded; but in regard to the first, he was entitled to state why he did not enter into controversy with the pursuer; but he was bound to state so in proper language; and if, while professing merely to explain why he did not notice his comments, he has gone beyond proper limits, and accused the pursuer of being disreputable; if he has done that, then he has com¬ mitted himself, and made himself responsible; but that question always comes back to this, is that what is said? Some gentlemen put the pursuer’s construction on the words, and others put upon them the con¬ struction of the defender, and they say they do so from their knowledge of the previous discussions between the parties. They knew the bad blood that existed between the parties, and that it was such that the words did not surprise them. It was proposed on the part of the de¬ fender, to give you an opportunity of seeing this, by showing you all that the pursuer himself was saying and doing in regard to Mr. Syme for the last ten or twelve years. We did not go into that. It is a fact in the case, which is proved, that they were in that antagonistic position towards each other; and that if the defender had confined himself to the mere expression of that which he says he intended to say, there was nothing wrong in it; but did he so confine himself. It is said that the language is ambiguous, and although he might have intended to explain himself in regard to that, he has not made it clear, and other people may not construe it in that way, and therefore that he is liable in damages, it is of consequence to get at the meaning if you can. A person is nqt en¬ titled to use two-edged language in reference to another; that will not do; nor even if he did not mean it in a double sense, but was careless in the use of his language, and thereby injured the other party, he is liable in damages. When you consider the meaning that you would put upon these words, looking to their fair meaning, do they or do they not import, that the pursuer is a person of disreputable character in his profession, and neither entitled to respect nor courtesy. It was remarked by the counsel