THE IRPEN CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 200, 22 August 1905, Page 2

THE IRPEN CASE.

4.OCTTSSI? ADjBKSSSSS SEE jrtripr. (Continued from Page 5.)

Dr. Lewis said the chair produced was one'adapted for the treatment of ail-

ments peculiar to women. The instruments produced were male boug.es, altered and threaded,, apparently for procuring miscarriage, the string being obviously for the easy withdrawal of the instrument. The instruments were not such as would form part of an ordinary practitioner's appliances, and even for procuring justifiable abortion they would not be used in the altered condition or in such great numbers. Two of the drugs produced were supposed to cause contraction of the utem*. T Dr. Orpen: Boiling would render bougies aseptic. Have you not most of the instruments produced in your rooms? —Yes. Can they not all—including the chair —be used for legitimate purposes ?—Yes, except., perhaps, the perforated bougies with strings. This concluded the case for the Crown. Dr. Orpen decided not to give evidence on oath or to call witnesses. He would, however, address the jury. DR. ORPEN'S DEFENCE. "Gentlemen of the Jury," said the doctor, "as regards Katterns' case, I have no recollection of having seen her, much less of having treated her in any way. I am charged with having treated her as far back as April last. When she saw Dr. Carolan, why were not steps taken against mc then? She may have been to my rooms, as she says, and I might at the time have been able to review the circumstances of the case, and explain anything that occurred, md give good reason for my actions. But I am certain she never could have told mc anything of having fallen down steps, and of the tube coming out. Not a word was said to mc about it till I wa3 charged with another ia.se and remanded. Is is not fair to assuTiic thai it was because the authorities thought the case was not reliable enough to bring a charge. The cisc stands on the bare word of Mrs. Katterns. She claims to be aDle to describe the furniture in my room, but she may have looked in and seen or may have learned from others what was in the rooms. . . . How loes her having a miscarriage corroborate her story? If she brought on the miscarriage herself would she be likely to idmit that to tne doctor or the police. It is known that women in that state suffer grave delusions- • . Her only safety is to adhere to her statement and tell the police. Gentlemen. I ask you to believe that her tale to the poilce was largely told not by her but by Dr. Carolan. If this is not the case, then, if the authorities were satisfied with the truth of her statement, why has there been all this delay in confronting mc with this charge, which, I venture to say, if improbable. If I did what she said, is it likely I would allow her to go away with one of the instruments to be produced as evidence again-t mc. She asks you to believe thatl, a stranger, operated on her and allowed her to take away one of mv instruments. Dr. Lewis says it can be used for a illegitimate purpose, but Dr. Lewis also tells you he has one in his own rooms, and has used it. Why, rhen, am I charged with illegally using

Dr. Orpen referred to the seriousness of the charge, and added. "I am an old man, 73 years of age, and you are asktxl to bolieve th / 1 with only a few more years to live took the risk of perpetual ruin and the spending of a few years in prison for a paltry five odd pounds." He urged th« jury to be careful not to convict on the evidence of one witness after such a long delay on the part of the police. *

Di?ing reminded of the Linkborn case. Dr. Orppn addressed the jury on that case also. He said she came and told him she thought she was in trouble, and asked if he could do anything for hor. He told her peniaps she had caught cold or had som? disease of the organs which he could not discover without examining her. He a speculum. He then found she was pregnant. Speaking of the doctor's evidence, he asked why he, a medical man. should be charged with improper practices for usine instruments which other doctors possessed. He had no opnortuntiy to watch this case. In any event, it was necessary for him to mak>? the examin.ition he made. If he did what was improper was it likely he would have advised her to consult another nodical man after charging her the absurd fee of £1. If the jury were to convict on this case it would never do in the future for any doctor to examine a woman for any uterine troub'e for fear of standing; in the place be now occupied, and tv*ine charged with having performed an illpsnl or>erntion. The Judge then summed up. (Proceeding.)