DEATH OF MRS O'DOWD.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 154, 1 July 1901, Page 5

DEATH OF MRS O'DOWD.

THE . ADJOURNED INQUEST

The adjourned inquest concerning the death of Mary O'Dowd, wife of the licensee of the Criterion Hotel, was resumed this morning, before Mr Oresham (Coroner). AN EXPLANATION. The foreman of (he jury ( Mr K. G. Macky) said he would like to make a few remarks with reCeren.ee ■to Dr. Wilkins calling- at his oflice since the last adjournment. The Coroner: Anything1 that haa taken place since the last adjournment can be given in evidence, but until it is brought before my notice on oath 1 can have nothing to do with ; it. The Foreman: I should like to be put on oath. After being- sworn, Mr Mucky deposed that on the 18th and 21st of June Dr. Wilkins called at his office. On the first occasion he called about 4 p.m. and asked witness to deliver a letter to his cousin at North Shore. Oh the second occasion Dr. Wilkins came to see if he could not have an important witness of his examined earlier, as the latler would be put to considerable inconvenience by any delay. Witness' reason for mentioning1 the matter was that it had been maliciously reported that when Dr. Wilkins was in his ollice the door was closed, which was untrue.

To Mr Tole: Dr. Wilkins was not at witness' office on Monday, 124 th ult/lf Detective Grace swore he saw Dr. Wilkins coming-out of witness' office that day, witness, on oath, denied it. He passed Dr. Wilkins on the stairs that day. The doctor said "Good afternoon," and that was all that transpired. Weren't you warned by the Coroner not to speak to any of the witnesses about the ease? Well, 1 warned Dr. Wilkins not to speak to me, and I referred him to the Coroner.

Mr Reid said Dr. ,W4lkins had no solicitor at the time, and simply wanted to iijid out how to get the evidence erf his witness taken. Mr Mucky referred him to the Coroner.

The Coroner said he had refused io see the doctor and had reported to the Inspector of Police that one of the witnesses had tried to interview him.

In answer to further questions the foreman said that on 21st June, when Dr. Wilkins came to witness' office, there were present his brother James Macky and Mr Edwurd Ryan, a juryman. Nothing transpired beyond what witness had described.

Mr Tole remarked that juries had been repeatedly warned by Supreme Court judges about talking- to witnesses and others about the eases they were connected with. It would shake public confidence if that sort, of thing went on. THE POST MORTEM. Dr. T. Hope Lewis gave evidence with regard to the post mortem examination made by him about 10 hours after the death of Mrs O'Dowd. There were no external marks of violence on the body. Decomposition was exceptionally rapid; The witness went,on to describe the condition of the organs examined. Death was due to acute blood poisoning, of an extremely rapid kind. There was no disease of the uterus to account for the . appearances presented.

Mr Tole: Were the appearances you saw consistent with the use of an instrument ?

Mr Reed: I submit that is an unfair question. The doctor could be asked was there any sign of an instrument being used. Mr Tole: Very well, we'll ask him that.

Witness: There was no trace or sign of any instrument being used. Would it be possible for an instrument to be used without leaving any trace? Certainly. There are many instruments that could be used without causing an abrasion. Were the conditions you describe consistent with the use of an instru-

Yes. To the Coroner: The .fact of a putrefactive condition of the foetus was evidence of infection from without That condition was not the same as in the case of miscarriages by natural causes. - . . 'To Mr Reed: He did not agree .with the-statement contained in Taylor on Medical- Jurisprudence (1865) that "mechanical means can seldom be applied to tt uterus without leaving marks of violence, on this organ as well as on .the body of,the child, Xi the mother should die, a result which generally takes place, an inspection would at once settle the point. .'. The Coroner said the word seldom" in the quotation robbed the statement of its utility. Witness continuing said his reason for differing from the authority quoted was that the puncture of the membranes which contained the ioetus was sufficient to cause its death, and no subsequent examination could detect that the membranes had been punctured by design. Also, that dru-s introduced by a syringe would cause abortion and leave no trace, ol mechanical injury. • In answer to Mr Ifeed,; witness aoreed with Taylor's statement that peritonitis might arise from a variety of causes, and that, if, they it to a particular cause, and thus implicated another in a felonious charge, they should do that only upon medical facts obtained by an ex--amination of the dead body. _ The post mortem appearances that you observed could arise from many CaS" SI think not. They were dueto the death and subsequent putretaction of the foetus. .■ The death- of the foetus mi^h^ be caused in many ways, might it not.

VeF OT instance, a Mow «ta".«lly might ha»e caused the a''o° f °f JTS the lower part »« the W = 2» sis r« would not cause the death of the f°Wm' you say positively that what you saw could not be-due tojump.ng or falling?' ' I-can only give my opinion Teem sider that the condition found at the post-mortem in tils case could not

have been caused by physical shock, subh as jumping or severe exercise.

To the Jury: There was no abortion prior to death. For 24 hours before death no operation for removal of the uterine contents could have saved her life:

Would it be quite possible to cause blood-poisoning- by the introduction of an instrument through' the membrane without puncturing the uterus? Yes, quite, possible.

What did cause the blood-poisoning? —The introduction of some bacteria from without.

Mr Reed: Supposing for the sake of argument that an operation was performed in this case for abortion, how long would the patient be likely to remain in the surgery?

Witness: The whole thing could be done in five minutes or less. That would suffice for the patient to be prepared for the operation, and to enable her to leave the sxirgery.

To Mr Tole: It was quite likely that ■the patient in such a case could not see the instrument that, was being used. His opinion as to. the cause of death in the present case being from an outside agency was given absolutely as the result of his own observations at the post-mortem examination. It had nothing to do with' what he had heard in connection with the case.

To the Coroner: He always made a practice of taking the name of every patient, and kept a copy of every prescription given away by him. The prescription sworn to by Dr. Wilkina as being- given to deceased would not procure abortion. It \fould.be suitable for certain cases of suppressed menstruation.

Dr. de Clive Lowe, rfcalled, deposed in reply to the Coroner that Drs. Lewis, Lindsay .and himself were all of the same opinion as to the cause of death «nd as to the appearances presented by the body of the deceased at the post-mortem. 'In his practice he kept books and in every case entered the name and address of each patient, with the date. In ever}''case he kept a duplicate of the prescription given. The prescription sworn to by Dr. Wilkina would not cause abortion.

In answer to further questions, Dr. Lowe said the instrument known as a "round" could be used in procuring abortion, and if carefully used it would leave no trace. The stilletto was an obsolete instrument. He had never seen it used. Prior to seeing the deceased on the day before she died, he had never to his knowledge seen her. To have performed any operation on the woman after he was called in on the Thursday would have been absolutely fatal. His reasons for saying so were that she could not have stood the anaesthetic, and that by interfering with the uterus he would only have intensified the mischief. ■" To the Jury: His own commonsense told him that the woman had previously been to another medical man.

DETECTIVE GRACE'S EVIDENCE

Martin Grace, chief detective, stationed in Auckland, deposed that about 10 o'clock on the morning- of Mrs. O'Dowd's death, he went with Detective Herbert to Dr. Wilkins' sur°erv. They saw the. doctor in the waiting-room, and witness told him who they were, adding that they had come to enquire ii" he had treated a female patient on the previous Wednesday afternoon. Detective Herbert then described deceased minutely to the doctor. The latter replied, "I do not remember treating any patient of that description on Wednesday.'' Witness reminded him that it was only about forty-eight hours previously that this woman was alleged to have been treated by him. Dr. Wilkins replied, "I have a great number of patients. Ido a cash business. I neither take their names nor address, and I can't remember." Detective Hearbert. then said: "This young woman's name is Mrs O'Dowd. She. was the wife of the. licensee of the Criterion Hotel. She died about 5 o'clock this morning. That is why we are enquiring:." The. doctor again replied that, he could not remember having treated such a patient. Witness then said: "To refresh your memory, this woman says that you gave her brandy after treating her." Dr. Wilkins replied: "I frequently give brandy to my patients. I keep a bottle in the surgery. I don't use any myself." He then said-: "I remember now that I treated one mysterious young woman on that day for womb-trouble. I don't know her name. She gave her address as Remuera. I didn't take down her name or address in my book."