STEWARD’S DEATH

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 17, 15 October 1926, Page 10

STEWARD’S DEATH

ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE NOT PROVED SHIP’S DOCTOR EXONERATED “NO JURY WOULD CONVICT” The allegations of negligence against the ship’s doctor on board tho lonic in attending Reginald Denniston (aged 4<), employed as assistant steward, who died of double pneumonia, were completely denied yesterday by the ship s doctor and others on the resumption of the adjou.rued inquest. Mr. W. (»• Riddell, S.M., was the Coroner. Mr. 11. F. O’Leary represented Captain A E. Jackson, commander of the lonic, and Dr. Breimon, ship’s surgeon. Mr. J. O’Donovan appeared for the crew of the ship, the Cooks’ and Stewards Union, and the Federated Seamen s Union. . , . „ At the preliminary hearing on September 27 the commander of the Tome and -Dr. J. R. Wells, said that Denniston had been well, attended to by the ship’s surgeon. Herbert Edwin Barnsley, an accountant of Duke, who signed on tho lonic at London as assistant steward, said that Denniston was not properly attended to at all. nnd also that be had intimated his intention to the commander and tho chief steward to charge the doctor with negligence when the ship reached port. The first witness yesterday was George imho Harold, vicar of Amberley. South Canterbury, who, during his voyage out on the lonie from England, acted as chnnlain on board. , „ "The last time I saw the deceased, uaJd witness, was on Saturday, the day before he died. I visited him on three occasions altogether, and he was always quite conscious and in a fit condition to know his mind, also to put forward com. plaints should he have any to make. None, however, were made. On the Saturday Denniston passed an imsolicited remark’ to the effect that ‘lie ships doctor was a very fine doctoi. who <- ■loing everything he could for him . 1 e vtear did not see any want of prodpi car© when he visited th© ‘V John C. Brennon. the ship s doctor, a duly qualified medical practitumer, who graduated at Trinity College. Dublin. said the first time lie saw Denniston was on August 20, after his illmss had been reported to him by the hospital steward. On the first examination he did not think the case <no for hospital, so ho allowed Denniston to iemain in his own quarters. The next day he seemed a little better, i.nd witness told him to carry on with his treatment and original instructions. On August 27 I was surprised to see my patient up on the deck,” proceeded the doctor "I then made inquiries as to how he reached there, and discovered that two stewards, Barnsbv and Turner, had helped him upstairs. I then examined the patient and ordered him into hospital at once.” Witness stated that he saw the deceased every day while in hospital up to the end, whichcame somewhat unexpectedly <n September 5. "In my opinion it was a very harmful thing for the deceased to 116 taken up on deck at all," lie added. “I was not consulted about it, and it should not have been done.” Lawrence Fenton, assistant steward, said'that at no time did Denniston complain of inattention on the part of the doctor. Witness further said that the doctor visited Denniston every day from the time the case was reported. John Evans, chief officer of the vessel, said that he used to go along nnd have a chat with the patient every day. The latter seemed quite delighted at the treatment he was getting, and made no complaint at all regarding any single thing. Edward Turner, late steward of the lonic, said the removal to thg deck was done at the patient’s own request. "This is not so much an inquiry into the actual cause of the deceased’s death as it is into the allegations made regarding the negligence on the part of Dr. Brennon, the ship’s surgeon,” said the Coroner in delivering his verdict. "At the same time as far as the evidence goes it clearly shows that the doctor did his best for the patient, and piescribed suitable treatment for him during the illness from which he eventually succumbed. • Several people saw Denniston when he was fully conscious, and he made no complaint to them at all legarding his treatment. Now, although Barnsly did everything possible for his shipmate, and it has been shown he attended to his wants as much as ne could, and was very kind to him, at the same time there Was recognised authority on board to be referred to. Dr. Brennon had charge of the patient, and, as ho says and others also say, he did everything in his power. He visited the sick man twice a day, and called upon him late at night as well as early in the morning. Barnsly, however, helped to take deceased up on deck without first gaining the permission of the doctor, with the result that Denniston had to bo put in hospital, where he died. I think that if the matter had been left in the hands of the ship’s surgeon, and others had not interfered and taken tho patient up on deck, this inquiry would act have had to be held to-day. Mr. Riddell went ou to say that there was no doubt in his mind that Barnsly had acted with the best of intentions towards Denniston. At tho same time the former had not hinted at negligence on the part of the doctor at all until the commander had spoken of him having taken the sick man up on deck. When the captain said he would report the matter at Wellington Barnsly then said ho would charge the doctor with negligence. "I am quite satisfied after having heard the evidence," continued the Coroner, “that if the doctor were sent before a jury, no jury would convict him on the charge, there being too big a conflict of evidence and no proof of negligence.” The Coroner found that the deceased died on board the lonic on September fl while the ship was on its way to New Zealand from double pneumonia. He also added that the doctor was free from all blame, and the charge of negligence had not been proved. Ln his opinion Dr. Brennon prescribed suitable treatment, and, as tho evidence showed, did his best for Denniston all through.