TO STRIKE OFF ROLL

Evening Post, Volume C, Issue 86, 8 October 1920, Page 8

TO STRIKE OFF ROLL

APPLICATION TO FULL

COURT

AGAINST LOCAL MEDICAL MEN

ALLEGED GRAVE IMPROPRIETY.

An aftermath of a case prominently before the public some time ago was revealed in an application to the Full Court to-day under the Medical Practitioners Act, 1914, to have Drs. Francis Wallace Mackenzie and Henry Arthur Herbert Claridge removed from the roll of medical practitioners on- the ground that they were guilty of grave impropriety in a professional respect by being concerned with the abduction from her parents of a girl, Edith Kathleen Stiangman, aged eighteen years and three months. ' Mr. P. S. K. Macasse.y represented the ' New Zealand Medical Board, and Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with'him Mr. ■ A. Fair, appeared for Dr. Mackenzie, and Mr. H. Fi O'Leary for Dr. Claridge. Mr. T. M. Wilford watched proceedings on behalf of Howard Nattrass and Edith Strangman.

On tte Bench were their Honours Sir Bassett Edwaras, Mr. Justice Chapman, and Mr Justice Herdman.

Before the case for the Board opened, Mr. Skerrett made an application that the proceedings should not be held in open Court. Section 22 of the Act did not require that the proceedings should be in open Court. The reason why he made the application was that details of the physical examination of a young, girl would necessarily form part of the 1 evidence. . . ■

Sir Bassett Edwards : "The publicity of proceedings is one of the great protectives against the commission of offences."

Mr. Justice Herdman: "Cannot the Court forbid publication of evidence?" Mr. Skerrett : "Only in criminal cases, your Honour." Counsel quoted Lord Halsbury for authority that Courts had jurisdiction to hold such a case as the present in camera. He recognised the Court had no right to forbid publication of evidence. He did not make the application in the interest of his olient, but in the interest of the gir\, who was not a party to the case,-and had, therefore, no locus standi.

His Honour the presiding Judge' said that after consideration the Court was of opinion that the public was too deep-' ly interested in the matter to justify a departure from the ordinary procedure. So far as what was said about the girl, who was concerned in the proceedings, the Court relied upon the Press to exercise a. proper discretion as to what was published. CHARGES AGAINST DOCTORS. Mr. Macasaey said that the proceedings were taken under section 22 of the Medical Practitioners' Act, which provided that if any registered medical practitioner, in the opinion of the Medical Board, was guilty of grave impropriety or infamous conduct or was convicted of an indictable offence, he should be.liable to be struck, off the roll. THE CHARGES. The charge against Dr. Mackenzie was that on 7th March, 1919, he committed a grave impropriety in a professional respect in that he conspired withj Howard Nattrass, the seducer of Edith Kathleen Strangman, she being then eighteen yeaTS and three months old, and being a patient.of his, to take her out of the custody of her parents and deliver her to Howard Nattrass and in that in pursuance of such design by deception he induced the mother of the girl to take her to and leave her at Nurse Vickers'a Private Hospital, in Brougham-street, Wellington; and in that late at night on the date aforesaid., with the aid, of Henry Arthur Herbert Claridge, medical practitioner, he took the girl from the hospital without thp knowledge or consent of her parents, and without the knowledge or consent of the matron of the hospital, and delivered her to her seducer, Howard Nattrass.

The charge against Dr. Claridge was that on 7th March, 1919, he committed a grave impropriety 'n a professional respect in that he conspired with one Howard Nafctrass, the seduceT of the said Edith Kathleen Strangman, a patient under the car© of Francis Wallace Mackenzie, with whom he had been in consultation concerning the said Edith Strangman, being then 18 years and 5 months of age, 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 in pursuance of such design lie assisted Francis Wallace Mackenzie to take the eaid Edith Kathleen Strangman from the private hospital where she was without the knowledge and consent of her parents, and without the knowledge and consent of the matron of the private hoispital, and delivered her to her seducer, the said Howard Nattrass. STORY OF THE CASE. The proceedings arose out of a case heard some time back, said Mr. Macassey, dealing with an attempt by Nattrass to take by force posisession of a young girl out of her parents' control and from her parents' house. The girl, Edith Kathleen Strangman, was bom on the 23rd November, 1900, and at the time of the abduction was some eighteen years and three months old. She lived with her parents and was employed as a typist by the Nattrass and Harris Motor Company from June, 1916, up to 4th February, 1919. Nattrass was a married man. He seduced Edith Strangman, who became pregnant about December, 1918, a fact which was not known to her parents until about the middle of February, 1919. About the end of January, 1919, Edith Strangman consulted Dr. Mackenzie, who subsequently informed the girl's mother that her daughter had adenoids, and must have an operation performed. Hi». asked the mother to fix a date for taking the daughter to the Brougham-street Private Hospital. Mrs. Strangman agreed, but no date was fixed. On the 4th February Edith Strangman stayed away all'night. Her parents went to Nattrass's office the following morning, and after considerable difficulty learned that the girl had gone to Napier. Strangman reported the matter to the police,' and went up by train to Napier after his daughter. Nattrass went also by motor to Napier, and took the girl away to Mount Egmont and back to Wellington. Her father went to the police to obtain possession of the daughter,' a.nd took her home. About a week later she complained about her nose, and Mrs. Strangman took her to Dr. Mackenzie, who advised her to,have her examined by Dr. Clariclge.

A few days later, continued counsel. Dr. Claridge examined the girl at-'Uie parents' house, and said she was pre.gnant about three and a half months. On the 7th March Dr. Mackenzie called at the Strangman's house, and mentioned 1 to Mrs. Stratigman about, the nasal operation recommended. They went to Dr. Claridge. and the mother v.-ns kept in. one room, while Nattrass appeared, and talked to the girl. Dr. Mackenzie told Mrs. Straneman to have the girl taken to Numb Vickers'* private hotpitjl at 8

o'clock that night. The girl was taken there and put to bed.

ALLEGED ABDUOTION.

Drs. Mackenzie and Claridge and Ns.ttraas met at Claridge's house that night, and arranged to go to the hospitai to take the girl out, and hand her over to Nattrass. The -three men proceeded in Nattrass's car to the Brougham-street hospital at 11.30 that night. Mackenzie entered first, and thte other £wo men remained outside. Mackenzie spoke to the nighi nurse, and asked for writing paper to write a, prescription. He spoke to Edith Strangman, and told her to get her things, as they were going to take her away. She put a dressing-gown over her nightdress and got into Nattrass's car, and drove away to Dr. .Olaridge's, when she got some clothes. The pair went away to Waikanae, and remained there three days. Dr. Mackenzie re^ maimed at the hospital, and when thd matron, who had heard the talking in the. kitchen, came in to see what was the matter at such a late hour, the doctor told her that the girl had escaped. The matron told him to go and inform the parents. Mackenzie went to the Strongman's house about midnigK, and said 1: "Your daughter" has gone—she seems either to have walked in her sleep or rung up Nattrass." Mr. Strangman said he would go for the police. Mackenzie said : "Leave her alone;she's over age." Then he ran down the. road, pursued by another daughter, and got jway. The doctor was too fleet for the daughter. While the father was informing the police Mackenzie and Nattrass got the girl away from Island Bay by a motorlaunch to Picton. The father went over to Picton by the Pateena and got his daughter. Nattraiss went over by a smaller boat and found the father and girl had left for Wellington. He immediately chartered a very fast motorlaunch and recrosaed the Strait at about 28 knots an hour. Immediately ori Nattrass's return the girl disappeared again. The family looked for the daughter, and one night found Dr. Markenzie and Nattrass coming out of a theatre with her. The father knocked Nattrass down and the other man with him knocked Mackenzie down. The father took the girl home again. From the middle of April the girl was kept at home.

One Sunday, however, in June, 1919, when she was allowed out to go to the church, she disappeared once more, and her parents had never. seen her since. It was understood that the child had been born. The parents took civil proceedings against Nattrass for damages and the case was compromised. SUBMISSIONS OF FACT. , Mr. Macassey then put forward as submissions of fact that: (1) Nattrass desired to have an abortion procured when he sent the girl to' Dr. Mackenzie, who was quits unknown to . the Straqgman family; >,2) after the examination, by Dr. Mackenzie the girl was sent away to Napier ,to have an abortion . procured, but, after her father had gone to the police, Nattrass brought the girl back; (3) Mackenzie, under pretext of performing an operation or the girl's nose, had her examined by Dr. Claridge to see "if she was pregnant.

A plan, said counsel, was then arranged between Mackenzie, Claridge, and Nattrass to get the girl out of the control of her parents, and hand her to Nattrass by deceiving the parents into the belief t that a nasal operation was absolutely necessary, and would be performed, and also by deceiving the matron of the hospital by telling her the girl was coming in for an adenoid operation, which there was no intention of performing.

It was understood, said Mr. Macassey, .that Mackenzie's defence would be that the parents intended and insisted on an illegal operation being procured ; upon their daughter, and that money was offered to both Mackenzie and Claridge by the father to perform the operation. They would claim that in the interests of the girl they- took her out of her parents' control and handed her river to Nattrass to cherish and look after her.

The parents, said Mr. Macassey, would most emphatically deny the statements appearing in the affidavit of Dr. Mackenzie, and allege that those statenmnts were absolutely false. He desired to have all the witnesses before the Court, so that their Honours might decide from their observation of demeanour which were telling the truth. ,

Mr. Ma.cassey referred to an inquiry which had been made into the matter by the Medical Board where evidence had been given. The board found the two defendants guilty of grave impropriety.

Mr. Skerrett a6ked that the minutes of the inquiry be put in. THE MOTHEB'S EVIDENCE. Emma Amelia Strangman, mother of Edith Kathleen Strangman, was the first witness, and deposed that at the time | when Edith went to Nattrass's office she was: the only typist. She had not seen Dr. Mackenzie before her daughter rang up to ask her to go to Dr. Mackenzie's rooms. Dr. Mackenzie said she had nasal and throat trouble, and she would have to be operated on or she would go deaf. Her daughter told her she had seen Dr. Mackenzie. She , knew her daughter suffered with her nose and throat. The. witness detailed the incidents whicb led to her daughter's leaving home on, the 4th February and her returning to Wellington about the 12th. Her husband was away up country looking for her, but Edith got back first. She heard that Nattrass had taken her daughter .to Mr. Myers to find out if she need return to her parents. Finally, through the aid of the police, Mr. Strangman got'possession of their daughter. She had no suspicion her daughter was pregnant when she went away. She first found out from Nattrass that her daughter was pregnant. She spoke to Dr. Mackenzie about her daughter's condition, ' and he suggested that Dr. Claridge should examine the girl. This was done in the presence of witness, and the doctor stated that the girl was three and a-half months pregnant. Witness then gave evidence as to the*' visit to Dr. Mackenzie's surgery. Dr. Claridgie, Dt. Mackenzie, and ■ witness> an<? her daughter were together in the room until Dr. Claridge went out, after whicb Dr. Mackenzie asked "witnseEs to. leave the room. "When he (Dr. Mackenzie.) came out with the girl he told) witness to take her to the Broughamstreet Hospital. Understanding that ho was gojng to perform a nasal operation, witness took her daughter to the hospital about 8 p.m. that day (7th March), 1 and left hei" therel. It was just after midnight that witness discovered Dr. Mackenzi© at the door of her house. Dr. Mackenzie said that the girl had left the hospital, and he went on speaking very erratically, until he ran away, when witness, told hi?r husband to go for tha police.

Witness related the departure to, andreturn from, Nelson'of her daughter, witness's husband having brought her back. The girl ran away again, on the i evening of the.day when Nattrass returned from Nelson. On the next occasion, the girl remained at home for three or four weeks, but some time in June she went away again, and witness next saw her at the Abel Smith-street Hospital. The girl had not»been home since then, and witness had not seen her, "AN ABSOLUTE FALSEHOOD." Questioned by Mr. Macassey as to this allegation by Dr. Mackenzie that both witness and her husband asked him to perform an illei'al operation on her daughter. wit;v?s? rc-piied that it was "an absolute falsehood."

Witness further stated that the police knew about tie condition of her daughter

after the girl went away from the hospital. Cross-examined by Mr. Skerrett, wit- ■ ness said that she never found pny letters written by Nattrass to her daughter. Nurse Vickers had found some- at the hospital under the mattress of the bed, and had sent these to witness's solicitor. The letters were handed in, and the luncheon adjournment was taken. PLEA OF DEFENCE. , . On the resumption of proceedings, Mr. Skerrett submitted that the letters (put in) from Nattrass showed that he never desired an operation to be performed on her, and was always against it and desired to save her from it. . He was no party to an attempt of an illegal operation. The passage quoted said the" girl did not know how close she- had been to danger, possibly to closing her life. This, said counsel, must refer to a suggested illegal operation-

Mr. Macassey submitted that the evidence was not admissible. The charge was one of conspiracy^ to abduct the girl from the hospital, not of conspiring to perform an illegal operation. (Proceeding.) ;.