Solicitor’s Evidence In Woman’s £1024 Claim

Press, Volume XCVI, Issue 28450, 3 December 1957, Page 16

Solicitor’s Evidence In Woman’s £1024 Claim

(New Zealand Press Association)

DUNEDIN, December 2. After claiming privilege, an Oamaru solicitor said in the Supreme Court today that Mrs Muriel Lorna Butcher had threatened him with his life if he went to work, assaulted an elderly solicitor, and said she would “get” anotner one. The witness, Alexander Roberts Tait, was giving evidence in a claim for £1024 damages by Mrs Butcher against David John Miller, a doctor, formerly of Oamaru and now of Dobson.

The plaintiff’s claim is based on allegations that she suffered bodily injury and mental anguish and was also in fear oi committal to a mental institution as a result of treatment by the defendant between October 11, 1950, and June 1, 1951.

Mr Justice Henry and a jury are hearing the claim, which today was in its third day. Before the adjournment was taken today his Honour heard submissions from defence counsel (Mr A. N. Haggitt), who asked for judgment for the defendant, or a non-suit. Mr T. H. Main (Oamaru), who is appearing for Mrs Butcher, was granted an adjournment till tomorrow to make suomissions as to why the case should proceed before the jury. Tait was called by the plaintiff to give evidence that two certificates relating to her health had been given by the defendant in a previous tenancy case. Cross-Examined Asked by Mr Haggitt whether he was present' when any assault had been made by Mrs Butcher on a solicitor, the witness said that he had not been. Mr Haggitt then asked if the plaintiff had threatened him. The witness claimed privilege. After his Honour had overruled this, the witness said that he had been threatened wi.'.h his life if he went to work. Mr Haggitt: Did you know a solicitor, a Mr Hamilton, who was assaulted in your office?—-The witness: Yes, but it was not in my presence. The witness agreed that Mr Hamilton was a very old man. Mr Haggitt: Was any other solicitor threatened? The witness: She told me that she would get Mr Zimmerman. In re-examination by Mr Main, the witness said that Mrs Butcher had not at any time been bound over to hold the peace. As Tait was leaving the witness stand, Mrs Butcher called out from the public gallery that there was a letter. While his Honour was advising Mr Main that his client was creating a disturbance and in danger of being removed, Tait said: “Your Honour, [ have had this for seven years now, and I would like some protection.”

Medical evidence was also heard today, when three doctors were called by the plaintiff.

Husband’s Evidence Continuing the evidence he started on Friday, Cecil Blackwell Butcher, the plaintiff’s husband, said that he had often asked the defendant why he had not come to see his wife when requested. Describing events on June 1, 1957, the witness said he arrived home for lunch to find his wife tucked up in bed. Coal had been spilt in the passage. He rang the defendant and asked what had happened. The defendant said: “Did you see your house smashed up?”

"I said, ‘You are a bright chap. Why did you leave her in that state?’ ” the witness continued. The defendant did not reply to this, but said he wanted to send a car to take Mrs Butcher to Seacliff. He gave no reason. The witness said he called that evening at the surgery and asked the defendant to come back and see his wife. The defendant replied, “If you do not send your wife to Seacliff I am finished with her. Furthermore, I want to get rid of her, anyway.” The witness said he was given till the following Monday to make up his mind. On his return, he said, his wife

showed him some clothing, and the next day he called on Constable Price, of the Oamaru police. “As a result of what he told me I got in touch with Dr. Colgrave,” the witness said. If the defendant said he had attended his wife on 39 occasions he was definitely wrong, the witness said. Nor was the defendant telling the truth if he said he had treated him personally 11 times. To Mr Haggitt the witness said he had not. when he first interviewed the defendant, said that his wife had taken an overdose of barbiturates. Events of June 1

Cross-examined on the events which allegedly occurred on June 1, the witness said that as a result of what his wife told him and what he saw for himself he came to the conclusion that she had been criminally assaulted by the defendant. He could not remember whether he had mentioned this to the other two doctors. He had not gone to lay a complaint with the police because the defendant was a friend of the detective and sergeant, and he was afraid of his wife’s committal. Mr Haggitt: If your wife had been assaulted, why should she want to see Dr. Miller again later in the year? The witness: Because she wanted to get him there face to face. Dr. E. S. Stubbs, who said he had been in practice in Oamaru since 1927, gave evidence of his treatment of the plaintiff from 1931 till 1949. She was a nervous patient, he said,, and suffered from rather excessive emotions. She had been attended by him 11 times between 1944 and 1949, not an excessive demand on his services.

After detailing her various symptoms, the witness said he had found the plaintiff a pleasant and reasonable patient. Light sedation was the treatment he almost invariably gave.

When he last attended her, on October 8. 1950, she was not much different from other times, though she was worried over the treatment by her landlord.*• The main trouble appeared to be excessive emotion over possible eviction. Urgent Call The witness said that on June 4, 1951, he was called urgently to the plaintiff’s home. She was in bed, and in considerable emotional stress. There were numerous bruises on her body, and the room was in considerable disorder. He examined her, but did not take her blood pressure, as he was more concerned with her emotional state and the story she told him. Her physical condition was not greatly changed from what it had been in the past. He recommended giving her mild sedatives. He considered she was much more distressed and upset emotionally than she was when he previously saw her. To Mr Haggitt the witness said he did not consider the drugs ordered by the defendant had been prescribed in excessive quantities. The amphetamine sulphate might have been excessive in relation to her condition, but this could have been lessened by the chloral hydrate which was also prescribed. Dr. J. L. Colgrave, of Oamaru. said he was consulted by Mrs Butcher on June 2, 1951. She was in a very disturbed state of mind, saying that she had been given medicine by Dr. Miller and as a result had collapsed. He told the plaintiff that he could not come, as she was still under Dr. Miller's care, and he did not actually see her until April 8. 1952. The witness said he telephoned the defendant to ask him if he was prepared to have a consultation with him and the patient, but. this was refused. “Dr. Miller said he wanted her to go to Seacliff, and as she would not he was finished with her,” the witness said. “He added that he was taking this opportunity of getting rid of her.” Later, in company with Dr. Stubbs, he went to Dr. Miller’s surgery and asked if he was willing to see Mrs Butcher, but the defendant said that he had been advised against this. Use of Drugs

Since he had been attending her he had seen Mrs Butcher about once a month over the last five years, the witness said. He thought that some of the drugs used would necessitate fairly frequent visits by a doctor, depending on the patient’s progress. The witness agreed with Mr Haggitt that a patient might not observe the directions on a bottle, and this was hardly the doctor’s fault. He would not say that the doses were excessive for an average patient. Dr. J. A. D. Iverach, formerly associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Otago and a general physician, said that when he saw Mrs Butcher in March, 1956, she was in a very nervous state, dissolving frequently into tears. She told him a number of things and seemed to be under the impression that her state of health was due to treatment of Dr. Miller. He formed the impression that there were features of hysteria in hei ease, but treatment for this was just as necessary ,as in other ailments.

Mr Main: Would it be prudent for a doctor to withdraw when a patient was unconscious?

The witness: I would say no. He would be expected to see that something else was done. To his Honour, the witness said that he had not seen any signs of harm to the patient in this case. He felt that the proper course, if a doctor wanted to withdraw, was for him to advise the people concerned that someone else should be brought in. To Mr Haggitt the witness said that he had not found any evidence of wrongful administration of drugs. He did not see why the defendant had used some of the drugs, but he did not think anything harmful had been done. He agreed that the actual treatment was a matter for the doctor concerned. After Tait had given his evidence Mr Haggitt said that the evidence of the doctors had shown there was no wrongful administration of the drugs. There was no evidence that they had been other than correctly prescribed, and it was absolutely false to say that Dr. Miller had abandoned Mrs Butcher while unconscious. There was nothing to show that the plaintiff had suffered in the slightest degree from the treatment by Dr. Miller, and he submitted that the case was clearly one in which judgment should be given for the defendant. The alternative was a non-suit, though this was not the proper course in this case.

Mr Main was making his submissions when the adjournment wa*.. taken.