MCKINNON CASE.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16209, 11 May 1918, Page 8

MCKINNON CASE.

APPEAL DISMISSED

(specie to "the pbess.")

WELLINGTON, May 10

Judgment was given by the Ful

Court to-day in the appeal against the refusal of the Modical Board to register John Alexander McKinnon as a medical practitioner. Thp applicant applied fer an prder to the RegistrarGeneral tp register him under the Medical Practitioners Act. The Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) delivered the judgment of the Court, and said that it appeared from Mr Cordery's affidavit tnat from Decombor, iyi3, to May, IUI4, ho was engaged investigating all the available Customs records in Christchurch. from tho beginning of the year 1910 to the beginning pf Decomber, 1913, and had fpund tnat the Customs Department had been dofraudod of revenue by moans of false entries, which had been' passed by McKinnon as landing waiter during tne years 1910, 1911, and 1912. An atlidavit was also given by Samuel John McCormack, who was formerly in the Customs branch of the Now Zealand Express Company at Christchurch, that during tho time McKinnon was employed ns landing waiter, }jo participated in certain transactions, whereby the Customs Department was defrauded of various sums of money in respect to Customs duties on goods imported into New ZealandPis Honour .went into the methods by which, by fictitious prime eptrieg, gpocls wero assesspd for duty at a less aniount than their ipvoicp vajup. McKinnon, he said, had been tried and acquitted. At this trial evidence as

to nine out of the 60 cases referred to in Mr Cordery's affidavit, yfas given by the Crown to show the system. McKinnon was tried on a second indictment, and the jury disagreed. At this , trial the oviclcnco as to 33 out of the 60 cases was given to show the system, and McKiiinqn was eventually acquitted. On behalf of the applicant, it was argued that, as the whole of the 60 cases referred to were bpforo the jury on the last trial, when McKipnon was acquitted, this qught to be treated as an acquittal with regard to all of the capes. His JJonour said the Court could not accept that view of the matter. The verdict of the jury only amounted to the fact that the evidence before them was not satisfing enough to bring in a verdict of guilty against MeKinnon. The verdict coq'M not ho treated as in' any sense an adjudication on the 60 cases now before the Court. It was not competent for the jury tp pronounce t;ny opinion as tpMcKinnon's guilt or innocence in connexion with these 6Q cases. Counsel for the applicant had also contended that thp meaning qf the words "good fame or charapter" was the "general fame" which applicant enjoyed where hp rpsided. and that wan sufficient. The live fitnesses who had sworn affidavits rpgarding his general "fame or character"' h,ad not rpferrod to the charges against the applicant, and it did not appear whether they knew of these charges or i?ot. The Court must assume that n° reputable citizen who had read the evidence produced before the Court could for one moment have sajd that the applicant was of "good faing or character." The outstanding' affidavits denying the charges mqdo against hirii Jiad offered no ex- [ plana tion as to how he as landing j waiter had passed GO false Custpins c-n----tnes and had certified that he had examined the invoices produced in connexion with these false " entries. There was the. fact also that hp had not contradicted the affidavit of Mc-C-ormick to the effect that Mclvinnan was a party to the frauds qnd had received a sharo of the plunder obtained by means of these frauds. "Hie Court," Sir Robert- went in, 'is of opinion that the whole object of tins legislation is to prevent nnde-Mi-nlile persons of bad character obtainni£ the position of a registered ined:cal practitioner.' It is certainly rndesiiahle that a man who has committed breaches of trust, theft, and frauds, should - be placed in such a position as that of a medical practitioner, which is in many respects one of trust. The evidence before the Court has established clearly that these charges against the applieant are_ and we lipid therefore that lie is not of 'good fame or character,' and that the Medical Board was justified in giving the direction w^lo Registrar." ihe appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs I amounting to £10 10s,