GRAVE IMPROPRIETY ALLEGED

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 12, 9 October 1920, Page 7

GRAVE IMPROPRIETY ALLEGED

CHARGES AGAINST MEDICAL MEN

AFTERMATH OP SENSATIONAL CASE

APPLICATION TO STRIKE NAMES FROM «REGISTER

Hearing was commenced in • the Full Court jesterdny of an application by the New Zealand.Medical Board for an order removing the names of Francis Wal- ■ lace-Mackenzie,- of Wellington, and Henry-Arthur Herbert Claridge, of Wellington, medical practitioners, 'from the register of medical practitioners in New Zealand. The.action was brought under ■ the Medical Practitioners Act, 1914, section 22.. the allegations being that both doctors committed a,grave impropriety.' ■ in a professional respect, in being concerned in the abduction ■ from her parents of a girl, Edith Kathleen Strangman. . The abduction was said to have occurred on March 7, 1919, the girl then being 18 years and 3 months old.

On the bench were TheiV Honours Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr. Justice Chapman, and Mr. Justice Herdman. Mr. C. P. Skerrett. K.C., with Mr. A. H. Fear, appeared for Dr. Mackenzie, Mr. H. F. O'Leary for Dr. Claridge, and Mr. P. S. K. Macassey, ou behalf of the Medical Board. Mr. T. M. Wilford watched proceedings in the interests of Howard-Nat-trass. an interested' party, and Edith Strangman. ' Charges wore laid-specifically against each defendant. Mackenzib was charged that ©n March 7, 1919, "he committed a grave-impropriety in a. professional respect, in that.lie conspired with Howard Nattrass.. the. seducer of .Edith Kathleen ■Strangman, being' then 18 years, and three months old, being a patient under, his care, to take her Wit of the custody of her parents, and to deliver her over to Nattrass; and that he did in pursuance of such des%n, by deception, induce tho mother of tho girl to take her and ■ leave her .at Nurse. Vickers's private hospital in Brougham Street, AVotlihgton; and that late at night oil the date aforesaid, with the aid of-Henry Arthur Herbert Claridge, ■medical practitioner, lie took the girl from tho hospital without the knowledge or consent of her parents, and without' the knowledge or consent of-the matron, ho delivered her to her seducer, Howard Nattrass." Similarly, the defendant Claridge was charged that, on March 7, 1919, lie'committed .a grave impropriety in a professional respect:in that he conspired-with olio Howard Nattrass, the seducer of Edith Kathleen StranfAian, a ' patient under tho cave of Francis Wallace Mackenzie ... to 'take the said Edith Kathleen Strangman out of the custody of her parents, and to deliver her over to the said Howard Nattrass; and in that on the date aforesaid.he assisted Francis Wallace Mackenzie to take her from, the private hospital wherein the girl then was. wilhont the knowledge or consent of her parents, and without the knowledge or consent of the matron of the private hospital, and' delivered her to her seducer. . . ." • Plea for Secrecy. Before, tho proceedings commenced, Mr! Skerrett niado application that-the rase should not be held in open court. Details, regarding private matters would of necessity v be discussed. <• Mr. Justice' Edwards replied that while the Court had power to suppress publication, in divorce cases, ho did not think the same could be done in the present case. "In any case," remarked His Honour, "the publicity given to proceedings is onb of the great protectives against the I 'commission of offences."

.. Mr. .Justice Chapman:'A Judge does not) clear the court unless he thinks that improper, uso is likely to be made of'the evidence. ;

, ;Mt. Skerrett: Well, sir, had the Soli-citor-General elected, ho could have had the application, made in' Chambers. . -Mr. Justice Edwards: '. I don't think lie. could l . ~

'Mr. Skerrett 'quoted Xord Balsbury ; a» indicating that tho Court'had power to . have the case heard in camera. While the Court could not foi'hid publication of evidence, he maintained the girl should be considered, and the application 'was ,-inadß in her favour.: As she was not a .• party in the case, she had no locus standi. ■.'■-. Mr., Justice Edwards:' The public is too deeply interested in. the case for ns to depart from the ordinary ■nilc. The case will be held in open court, but tho Bench relics on the Press to exercise discretion ns to what is published. History of the Case. Mr. Macassey submitted that tho application had arisen originally out of a case in the Police. Court, brought after ' aa attempt by Nattrass to take tho girl ' - concerned l from her parent's' house by .' force. At the time of her abduction, the girl was just over 18 years old, and was employed as a typiste by Nattrass',Mvho Was tho managing director of the Nattrass and Harris Motor Company. Despite the fact that he was a married man, Nattrass seduced the girl, who became pregnant in 1918, the fact not being made known to her parents until February, 1919. Tho,girl consulted tho defendant Mackenzie nt the end of Janu- ■ Ky, 1919, unknown to her parents. At S' later date, the doctor informed tho girl's mother that ; adenoids made it necessary for tho girl to undergo an operation. On February 4, 1919, the girl Btayed- away from home all.night, andon the following morning, on going to Nattrass's office, the parents were told she had gone to Napier. The matter was reported to the police, and the girl's father left by train to bring her back. . . However, Nattrass went by motor-car, nnd reached the girl first, faking her for a trip to Mount Egmont. The girl was taken home on February 12. At 1 this period.the parents notified Nattrnss that the girl would not work at his oilice any more. About this time tho . girl complained of nasal trouble, and on Mrs. Strangman taking her' to Mac-_ ' kenzife sho was told that the girl was" pregnant. The defendant advised an. examination, and a few days later Claridge examined the girl, and - said she had been pregnant for about three and 'a half months. On March 7, Mackerizie called on Mrs. Strangman, and after inquiring ■ about the nasal operation asked -the girl to visit his surgery, as Claridge wished to make a further examination. At tho rooms Nattrass was present-and talked to the girl, whoso mother was kept waiting. Instructions were later given Mrs. ' Strangman to.take her daughter to Nurse Vickers's private hospital at, 8 o'clock that evening, aud -meanwhile arrangements for the reception of tho_ girl were made at the hospital. On arrival there, she was put to bed, and, it was alleged, Mackenzie and Nattrass then mot at Claridge's house and planned the abduction: Mr. Macassey alleged further that the three men. visited the hospital at 11 .!W . o'clock on the night of March 7, and Mackenzie went inside, leaving the others in Nattrass's motor-car. After a 'talk with the night nurse, whom lie .J/nanaged to keep iln, the kitchen, the defendant Mackenzie got tho girl awny to ..Claridge's house, and later Nattrass and «he motored to AVaikanao, where they remained for- three days. Later in the night, the matron found Mackenzie in the hospital kitchen, and ho told her tha eirl had escaped, saying, "Possibly ehe may have walked in her sleep." no then, left the hospital, 'and proceeded to the Stranguians' house, where he told them that the girl had gone. When . Mr. was about to go for the police, Mackenzie said: "Leave her alone, she's over age." • Mackenzie then ran down the street, pursued by Mr.'Strnngmnn's other daughter. "Ho was too fleet, however," added Mr. Macassey. Developments now came fast, said prosecuting counsel.* Nattras* sent the girl from Island Bay to Picton by motor launch, and the father, hearing of this, went over by steamer and brought her .back again.- Nattrass also went over, and finding that.the girl had gone, returned by a specially speedy launch. In reply to Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr. Macassey said he did not know who tooic tho girl over to Picton. The girt did not stay long at home, however. Sho

ran away, and was not seen again until her father saw her coming out of a theatre in Wellington with Mackcnzio and Nattvnss. lilio was induced nifiiin to return home, but finally, on a,Sunday evening in June,- ]?lfl, undtv the pretort of soilng. to ehntoh, she disap-

peared, and never returned to her home. Counsel understood, that a child . had been born. Damages had been .received by the parents of the girl by a compromise in civil litigation. Allegations by Counsel. As mattei-3 of fact, Mr.'Macassey submitted that Nnttrass had desired to have abortion procured on, the girl, and had. sent her to tho defeudant Mackenzie, who was a physiteian unknown to tho Strongman family. He [ contended that the girl had been sent away after examination for tho purpose-alleged. Mr. .Skerrett: Do you allege tho girl was sent to Napier for tho purpose of abortion? Mr. Macassey: Yes. Under the patext of having an operation performed on the girl's nose, she was loxaniincd by Claridge, and a plan was then hatched to est her out of her parents' control,, and to. hand her over to Nattrass by deceiving the parents into tho belief that a nasal' operation was necessary. Tho defendants also deceived tho ma; tron' 'of the hospital by telling her that the girl was entering the institution for an adenoid excision, which there. wiis never any intention to perform. Your Honours wjll see by the affidavits that Mackenzie's defence is that tho parents iiisisted on abortion being procured on tho daughter; .that money was allegedly offered by the father to Mackenzie for the performance of the operation; that in tho. interests of the. girl herself they would take her out of tho parents' control nnd hand her- over to Nnttrass, who would cherish and look after, her. I will slate, Your Honours, that nil' these statements of defence have been emphatically denied bv the parents, who.allege tihey are false, and that wilful and corrupt perjury has been committed. . . . Even if it were true,, which | I deny, that the parents mode overtures to the doctors to perform tho" operation,tlu doctors enme under the section of the Act on which the prosecution is based because they deceived the parents,' got the girl out of parental control, and handed.her over to her seducer, Nattrass. Mr. ; Macassey also said that there was no doubt of conspiracy'. The parents had never suggested the operation. The Medical. Board had inquired into the specific charges, and after hearing evidence was of the opinion that the doctors had been guilty of grove impropriety.-. . Both hail admitted before, the board that they had met at Clnridge's house.. Mr. Skerrett: Surely my.friend doesn't expect me to admit that? Mr. Macassey: It is in your own affidavit. . .Mr. Skerrett: I will admit only formal matters. I nm prepared to 'admit the resolution of the Medical Board if a copy is put in. If not, I admit nothing.Similar views were expressed bv Mr. O'Leary, who admitted only formal riinttcrs. Evidence of the-Mother.

The mother of the girl gave evidence in support of Mr. Maeassey's allegations. There were no other typis-tes in Nattrass's office when the girl'went there in 1916. ; When witness went to Mackenzie's room with her daughter it was the first time she.had ever seen him. The girl had been suffering from nasal trouble since childhood, so witness was not surprised at her requiring treatment. 'Witness gave details of her husband's search for the girl when she left home on .February i, 1919, and spoke of Nattrass's attempt to prevent the girl returning home, stating that a police sergeant separated the two «t the entrance to the Midland Hotel, \'he girl being taken home. Before {witness saw Mackenzie the second time, she knew the girl was pregnant, having found out from Nattrnss,' who came to the house to tell her. When Mackenz/o had spoken of having Claridge to examine tho girl, witness .did not'think there would be any examination savo on the nose. At the time of the examination, witness was kept at tho other end of the surgery by Mackenzie, who .showed her photographs while Cliiridso was conducting the examination. Witness remembered Mackenzie joining to her home on the night of the abduction "in an erratic state," telling her at midnight' that the girl had .gone from the hospital, and remarking "She might have walked in her «!eep." She suspected Mackenzie when he ran away. Tho allegations of the doctors as to 1 the abortion were absolute falsehoods." ' ' ■ . :

Cross-examined' by "Mr. Skerrctt, witness admitted having heard of letters found under the mattress of the girl's bed at the hospital, addressed by Nattrass. The nurse lvho found them did not irivo them to witness, but to a firm of solicitors, j Conflicting Statements. At this stage Mr. Skerrett produced a letter which ho said demonstrated that there was no desJre on.tho'part of Nattrass to .have an operation performed on the girl. The. letter showed that an arrangement had been made to get the eirl away from the hospital, proving; that Nattrass had no intention of allowing or encouraging an illegal operation, although it admitted that thero had been a plan to remove the girl from the. hospital. Mr. Macassey: The evidenco Mr. .Skerrett has produced is not admissible. AVitricss admitted, under further crossexamination.' that the first interview with the doctor was before the Napier episode. She would not admit that her husband'went to Claridge's house before the girl went,away. In reply to a question from Mr. Skerrctt as to the amount of damages received from Nattrass after the : compromise, witness saM that about .€370 in all had been deposited in the bank for the girl. Witness denied that ,£650 had been received after all expenses had been ■paid. Mr. .Skerrett: Why was the money put in the bank? Witness: If I had given it to the girl it ■■ would onlv have been taken back te Nattrass. You shouldn't ask me ahou> this money. Mrs. Strongman at this stage broke down, and her cross-examination was adjourned. , Incident at the Hospital. The next witness called was Isabel Crystal Vickers, matron of the Brougham Street private hospital, who gave I evidence as to the girl's entrance into r tli». hospital, under the instruction' of Mackenzie. The night nurse took her to bed. Witness said that she saw Mackenzie at about midnight, nnd whs greeted with the words "The girl 'has gone.". She then asked the doctor to inform Ihe girl's parents, as she had never heard of them, before. Witness know nothing about the girl's departure! and was in no,way connected with- it. Mackenzie had never been in the hospital since/. Cross-oxarained by Mr. Skerrett, witnoss admitted having found letters undernonth the. mattress of the girl's 'bed, but these/had been sent-to a lawyer; To. Mr. .O'Leary: Miss Strunguian's clothes' were left in the' hospital. Witness knew nothing about C'laridge. "We do not accept patients from Claridge." added. Nurse Vickers. Evidence of the Father. The father of the girl, William Strongman, saddler, of Wellington, corroborated 'Mr. Macassey's opening statements. Ho remembered perfectly, no said, the various occasions on which his daughter left home, but' could 'not remember exact dales. lie undorslood his daughter had taken her mother to see Mackenzie. When witness saw Nattrass at the Midland Hotel the latter swore that he did not'know where the girl was, and was "as innocent as u newborn ohild." , Hero Mr. O'Leary objected to the evidence as being inadmissible. Witness, continuing, said ho considered that Nattrass was keeping the girl away from her family. Ho learned that- his daughter was pregnant by a statement made by a woman in Wanganui. Details of the girl's home-coming were supplied by'the witness, .who told of Nattrass's "visit -to his home, and alleged that. Nattrass said: "If you hadn't- gene to the police I would have had your duughlor fixed up." Witness had called Nattrass a scoundrel. This occurred a day or two after tho girl had come buck from Napier, somewheru about February 12.. AVitness had asked Claridge -to osnmine his daughter, actinic -under the instruction of Mackenzie, the object being l» ascertain how long the girl had been pregnant. Witness remembered Mackenzie's nuclurnal visit to the house. "He tcld us the daughter had etcuped from the hospital, and behaved in a very erratic maimer generally," said the witness. "My wifo asked mo to ring the police, but Mackenzie advised us to 'let the girl havo her fling,' as she was over age. He then ran down the lano, with me nftet him. Later I rang up the Mid-

land, but Nattrass was not there, and then 1.-■, rangl .-■,rang up the police". Witness did not see the girl again until he went to Nel6on after her, having forced Nattrass to admit wh'ero she was. He had been looking. for his (laughter for some time; then one night saw Nattrass's car at the back of a. theatre here, and saw Nattrass, Mackenzie, aad the girl arm-iu-arm. ■ . •

"I saw my girl and touched her arm, saying, 'I want you, Edie,' said the witness. "But Mackenzie pushed me away. I. then called him' a low brute, nnd slapped his face."' Witness's brother struck Nattrass at the same time. Nattrass and Mackenzie followed witness and his daughter home. "The last time I saw the girl," added witness, "was in hospital." Witness ; denied absolutely having asked either defendant to procure abortion en- his daughter. Alleged Offer to Mackenzie, Mr. Macassey said that in an affidavit Mackenzie -had .alleged that, witness offered- .£SO and said ho would mortgage -his furniture if Mackenzie would perform the operation of abortion. To Mr. .O'Leary, witness said that before his ■ daughter became pregnant he was quite on: friendly terms with Nattrass,- and- had on:e gone on a long automobile trip with him to Napier, and later:to Taupo. -','.' Evidence as to the girl's condition was given by John William Wolfe, builder, who stated that 6ho had asked him to tell Nattrass to make a clean breast of .it.to her parents. .Mrs, ■' Strangman. who had /recovered from her breakdown, again entered tho witness-box;'and replied to Mr. O'Lcary's cie-ss-examination. " Witness stated, that after the second examination Mackenzie had sn.id a nasal, operation was necessary, and it was then -that Claridgo was first heard of in the matter. Then witness again broke down, saying that it was not fair- *o bo subjected to such treatment, Questioned as to tho examination on March 1, Mrs. 'Strangnun reiterated that she did not see Cbridgo rsnmine the girl, who was a*., tho other end of the surgery. Sho thought the .doctors wera genuine. Question of Jurisdiction, Mr. Skerrett hero interposed on the question of producing evidence, and remarked that he seriously thought the Court had no jiirisdictio.il. There was some discussion on ihe ;iuint of evidence, and Mr. Maenssev said ho would call evidence to show' Wlnt took place at the meeting of,the Medical Board.

Albert Edwin Brigga, a Hansard reporter, stated he bud taken shorthand notes of the Medical Board inquiry. He rend his report on the inqirry, which contained reference to the tnkilig of,the girl to. the' hospital, Nattrnss, it appMred, had gone to tho doctor with a motor-car and Claridge accompanied him, remarking to tho board, "That is where 1-. did, a foolish thing, perhaps." A fter a short cr6s?-exaniinntion of the Inst, witness, the Court was adjourned until Monday at 10,30 a.m.