SUPREME COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 31, 6 February 1905, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

OPEJTZHG- OF TEE CHIMIKAL f SESSIONS. I THS CASE AGAINST DR. COLUNS. JUDGE'S CHARGE TO TEE GRAND JURY. (Before Mr Justice Edwards.) The criminal sittings of the Auckland Supreme Court were begun this morning in the presence of a crowded Conxt. The Hon. J. A. Tole was present as Crown Prosecutor, and Mt R. G. Thomas officiated in his new capacity as registrar. THE GRAND JURY. The following were empannelled as the prand jury.—Messrs B. Kent (foreman). T. B. Arthur, Wm. Beaumont, H. R. Bloomfield. Edwaxd Buchanan, R. W. Dnder. VV. J. Dufaur. G. V. Edgeumbe, P. M. Hansen. J. P. Hooton. W. B. Leyland, R. G. Ivlaeky. H. P. Oakden. E. C. Smith, J. E. Taylor. A. Tempest. F. T. Upfill. Pc Walton. F. B. Winstone, Alex. Wiseman. THE JUDGE'S CHARGE. In his charge to the grand jmy, His Honor said the cases before them numbered some 24. but it was gratifying to ■?ee a reduction in the number of trivial eases, such as occupied their attention at the last session. The remarks he then made had evidently borne fruit. There were, however, a number of serious cases. The most serious was one in which a man named Murton was charged with murder at Mercer. The evidence was purely circumstantial. It was suggested that the condition of the woman whom the prisoner was charged with murdering , showed that an indecent as- j sault or attempt at rape had been committed, and that she was in such a weak state of health at the time that she died. The law provided that if an offender by an unlawful act killed a person, even though he had no intention to kill such person, he was sruilty of murder. There misrht be considerable difficulty in saying that the accused knew or ought to have known, that his act would cause death, and they might, if they chose, find a true bill on a charge of man-laiighttr. or find a true bill on the charge <:i murder, and leave it to the common jury to decide, when, of course, every care would be taken that the man should not be convicted if there was any possibility of doubt. THE CASE AGAINST DP. OOLUNS. There were two eases in which manslaughter was alleged. The first was the case—of which they had all inevitably heard a great deal, which they must dismiss from their minds as much a= possible—against Dr. Collins, the surgeon at the Auckland Hospital. He was charged, as they knew, with having caused the death of a man named Wallis White while undergoing a surgical operation. The law on the point protected everyone from criminal responsibility who performed a surgical operation with reasonable care and skill, with proper regard to the patient's condition and all the circumstances of the ease. A great many medical men had been called, and would also probably come before the Grand Jury, who challenged tlie complete propriety of Dr. Collins' operation Lin this man. Nobody challenged the necessity of an operation of some kind, for without operation the man must Lave soon died. But it was suggested that Dr. Collins did more than was necessary. The principal ground of this suggestion was that the doctor made two incisions in the intestines, the propriety t>f which was cliallercred by a considerable number of malieal men. and also put certain stitches in the stomach, which were said by thf-sc medical men to have been unnecessary. Of course, every surgeon— in fact, everybody who performed a surgical operation, whether a surgeon or not —was bound to have reasonable skilL He was not bound to have the skill of a first -class specialist in London; it was impossible that he could have it. If every surgeon were expected and required to exercise as great skill as might bo exercised by the foremost specialist of the day, of course, the life of a surgeon would be intolerable; he would not be able to live. But he must exercise reasonable care and skill. It -was a question first of all, "Did he exercise reasonable care and skill?" If it was clear he did, then, of course, no bill ought to be found against him. However, a great dteal of evidence had been given that reasonable care and skill were not used, and unless it •was clear to their minds that reasonable men could not say to the contrary, it could be assumed by them—because of course they were not trying the case—that reasonable care and skill was not used. But then they had to go further than that. They had to ascertain whether want of reasonable care and skill caused or accelerated the man's death. The law on this point said that everyone who by his act or omist sion caused the death of another, killed that person, if the bodily injury caused to such person were such a≤ to accelerate his death, even though that death might depend on some disease arising from some other cause.

So to complete the case against Dr. Collins it must be clear, first, that he did not exercise reasonable care and skill, and. secondly, that want of reasonable care and skill caused or accelerated the man's death. There was no suggestion that, it cause*! the man's Seath. At least, if there were, it was very remote. But it was suggested that it accelerated death. Well, it was for the Grand Jury to say whether there was any evidence of this. A large number of doctors had been called, and. as far as he could ascertain from the depositions, there was no evidence that Dr. Collins' acts accelerated the man's death, and if ho did not he must not be put upon bis trial. His Honor had examined the evidence of th°se gentlemen very closely —the evidence of Dr. Iseil. Dr. Savage. Dr. Gillon. Dr. Purehas. Dr. Bull. Dr."Marsaek. all called before the Royal Commission—and as far as he could see the utmost that any one of them said was that it might have accelerated death. The man had a very small chance of life in any ease. His best chance of life, on the most liberal estimate of the medical men, was one in ten: others put it at one in 100. And >o far as he could see from the depositions there was not one of them who would say positively that wnat was dons must have caused or accelerated death. Then they must throw out the bill because, of course, it was wrong for a man to be put upon his trial for an" offence which wa3 not supported by any reasonable evidence. No doubt they had heard a great deal about surgeons being much too prone to look inside people's bodies to try and see what they could find there, and no doubt many of the jury bettered this was correct, and, if so, it was highly desirable that it should be cheeked. But

it most not be checked by finding a mag guilty of manslaughter when there was no evidence to support the charge. nor should a medital man be put on trial if there was no evidence that the pryias into the man's body and the operation on it did cause or accelerate his death. If there wa's any evidence on which reasonable mrsa could come to the conclusion that '.he acts of this medical man did caus/3 or accelerate the death of Walli.4 White, then they would find a true bill. Ii not, it wsls quite clear that no man should be put on trial in respect to a charge which there was no evidence to support.

They would hear for themselves what the debtors had to say, but so far as he could see from the depositions at present there was nothing before the Lower Court. This and other cases would no doubt occupy a great amount of their time and attention. The case was cne of very great importance, there was no doubt, and he was sure they would not grudge the time and attention it would involve. If there was any reasonable evidence that the acts of Dr. Collins did cause the death of Wallis White, then it was their duty to find a true bill, even though that evidence were such as they would not convict o nif they were the common jury: because they were there not to try "the ease, but to decide if there were a ease to he tried. But they must be satisfied that there was a ease to be tried. After speaking of another manslaughter charge against a man named Oliver in a billiard saloon, and directing the grand jury on legal points, His Honor remarked" on the different degrees of seriousness in the two cases. The charge against a medical man of performing a grossly unskilful operation, and causing the patient's death, was a very serious charge, but where in process of fights—which scarcely ought to be dignitie dwieh the term "fights." but rather to be called "scrambles"—death occurred from acts which nobody would suppose would leave fatal consequences, the seriousness of the ease was comparatively trivial. And although the offender "should be con-# victed, a lenient sentence would be passed. In eases of manslaughter it was | not uncommon to release the offender. He did not suggest that Dr. Collins wolud be released, but it was entirely at the discretion of the judge, and they must leave it to him to exercise that discretion, if occasion arose, reasonably. TRUE BILLS. True bills were found in the cases against James Clark (theft and false pretences at Hokianga and Ohaeawai), Kaxaka Kerapa (horse stealing at Huntly), Walter Wrexham Hawkins (theft of a bicycle at Rotorua); August Broseahenske (robbery and theft from the person at Ragian), Andrew John Whiteside (forgery at Auckland). Gerald Wm. Miller (forging and uttering at Te Aroha), Geo. Taylor Mitchell (cattle stealing at Drury). A LENIENT SENTENCE. • A young man named Walter James Donnelly came up for sentence on a charge of forging a cheque at Whangarei. The prisoner made no defence, and His Honor said he could not accept probation in the case, but he would pass a lenient sentence, as Donnelly had, according to his late employer, borne an excellent character up to a recent date. A sen-' tenee of nine months' imprisonment was imposed. A SERIES OF CHARGES. James Clarke pleaded guilty to several charges that at Ohaeawai he stole a horse and a saddle and bridle, and with attempting to obtain £1 5/ by means of false pretences. He was further charged with breaking and entering the shop of James C. Bindon at Horeke, and stealing £1 and one bottle of whisky, and with having the whisky in his" possession, knowing it to have been dishonestly obtained. The prisoner, in defence, said that at the time the crimes were' committed he was under the influence of drink, and did not know \£hat he was doing. His Honor said there were several previous convictions against Clarke, who was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. A ROTORUA PROSECUTION. Walter Wrexham Hawkins was charged with the theft of a bicycle, the property of George Francis" Bennett, at Roiorua. H e was further charged with having the bicycle in his possession at Katikati. knowing it to(have been dishonestly obtained. The accused, who was undefended, pleaded not guilty. The evidence of George Francis Bennett was to the effect that the accused came to his shop and wanted to hire a bicycle for the afternoon. He told witness that his name was Captain Hursthouse, and that he had left his pocketbook at his hotel, and had not the money with him to pay for the machine. Witness lent Hawkins the bicycle, and the accused never came back with it. He made no arrangement to hire the machine to the accused for a week. Albert George Gabites gave evidence supporting the statement of the previous witnessConstable Dunne said he found the accused at Katikati, where he said he had arrived from Rotorua on a bicycle which he had hired for a week. He intended to go to the Thames, and return the machine from there. {Proceeding.) ===== 'The Times-"' records that the J Rev. James Duncan, a Presbyterian | minister residing at Foxton, attained the age of ninety-two years on February Ist. He has resided in the colony for sixty-four years, and is believed to be the oldest Presbyterian minister in the world. He is a very fin* Maori scholar, and was probably the earliest 'to teach ' the Maoris to read and writeAmongst the notable fishermen staying at the Okoroire Hotel during the past week were: Mr. T. Keenaiu of Melbourne, a constant visitor; Dr. Collins, who landed some six-pouaders; Mr. Clive. of Ceylon: Mr. O'CaJlaghan, of Wellington; Colonel Bridges: and Mr. Buckingham, of England. They are ail delighted with the trout fishing about the springs. Mr. Buckingham comes out from England every year io fish in the Hot Lakes district. Two good jokes are being told in the city. The first is that of a tall woman who sailed down Queen-street, trailing after her a long train. The story rs that I the lady had been shopping, and when ! she emerged there was on her train, face upwards, a ticket inscribed, 'The famous clean sweep and cash price. 1/1 L" She moved along the street blissfully uaconscious of the wake of mirth she left bubbling behind her! The ether is. told of a Maori and a photographers shop. Electric light had been installed, and was rtmningr in the afterroon by way of trial. ""rEhoa!" cried the Maori to a passer-by, and pointing to a glowing incandescent bulb. ''"Him go all time?" "Oh, yes; if you don't turn it off." "All time?" *Yes." Ttapai. I go. buy one," and he dodged into the shoe to do so. Both tiese 3toriea are true and unexaggerrfced. Troth is sometimes funnier T-v»«ri fiction.