DOCTORS' DOINGS

Evening Post, Volume C, Issue 87, 9 October 1920, Page 9

DOCTORS' DOINGS

IMPROPRIETY ALLEGED

MOTION TO STRIKE OFF ROLL

AFTERMATH OF ABDUCTION CASE.

Further evidence was heard yesterday afternoon by the Full Court in the case against two Wellington doctors for alleged grave impropriety in a professional respect. The proceedings, which ■were reported fully in yesterday's Post, "were in the nature of an application 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 Strangman, aged eighteen years and three months.

Mr. P. S. K. Maeassey 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. F. O'Leary for Dr. Claridge. Mr. T. M. Wilford "watched proceedings on behalf of Howard Nattrass and Edith Strangman. On the Bench were their Honours Sir Bassefct Edwards, Mr. Justice Chapman, and Mr. Justice Herdman. THE CHARGES. The charge against Dr. Mackenzie xvas that on 7th March, 1919. he committed a grave impropriety in a professional respect in that he conspired with Howard Nattrass, the seducer of Edith Kathleen Strangman, she being then eighteen Years 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's 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 the 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 Nattraes. The charge against Dr. Claridge was that on 7th March, 1919, he committed a grave impropriety in a professional respect in that he conspired with one Howard Nattrass, the seducer of the said Edith Kathleen Strangman, a patient under the caTe of Francis Wallace Mackenzie, with whom he had been in consultation concerning the said Edith Strangman, she being then eighteen years and five 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 he; assisted Francis Wallace Mackenzie to'take the said Edith Francis 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 hospital, and delivered her to her seducer, the said Howard Nattrase. At the continuation of the hearing of the case yesterday afternoon, Mr. Skerrett made a, strong plea to the effect that the letters from 1 Nattrass to the girl showed that he never contemplated anything in the nature of an illegal operation on the girl in question. The suggestions, he submitted, cam© from another quarter. Mr. Skerrett contended that the letters •were facts, communications by Nattrass to this girl, relating to the performance by somebody of an illegal operation. This case was concerned with a charge of professional misconduct, not a charge of crime or conspiracy. ■ Sir Bassett Edwards : "Likei ai> tequiry into the conduct of a solicitor." Mir. Skerrett: "Exactly so, your Hcnour."

. Mr. Macassey said hie was prepared1 to let the letters go in, if he could call evidence in regard to them.

THE MONEY FROM NATTR.ASS. Mr. SToerrett then resumed his crossexamination of the witness, Mrs. Strangman, mother of the girl in the case. The witness said she had never heard of her husband going to Dr. Olaridge's before this affair. Her daughter had been attended for her throat by a Napier doctor before the family came tc Wellington. After the return of her daughter from the Napier episode, about the 12th February, they kept her under close'observation until she went hospital on 7th March. She had heard that some friend of her daughter's carried letters between her daughter and Nattrass. Mt. Skerrett: "How much did you get out of Nattrass in the civil proceedings?"

Witness : "I didn't get it." "How much did your husband get?" —"About £370 after the expenses were paid."

"How much altogether?' Was it not £650 over and above costs?"—" No."

"What, hn-ve you done with it?"—"We have put it in the savings .bank for the interests of our daughter. Mr. Skerrett was proceeding when the witness broke down again, exclaiming : "You should not bring up money to ma about her."

Further examination of witness was discontinued. MATRON OF THE HOSPITAL. Isabel Crystal Vickers, matron of the Brougham-streel Private Hospital, referred tr the occasion of the girl Strongman's entry into her hospital. Dr. Mackenzie had spoken to her about the case as a nasal operation case. About 12 o'clock the same night, she. found Dr. Mackenzie thaxe, and he said that tha giri had gone. She told him to go and, inform the girl's people. Dr. Mackenzie was in the habit of coming very late to see any patient, though it was not customary. She was in no way a party to the escape, and knew nothing about it. Dr. Mackenzie had never been in her hospital since. Mt. Justice Chapman. "When did you first hear about the case coming in?*' Witness : "About lunch time Dr. Mackenzie spoke about it." LETTERS UNDER THE BED. To Mr. Skerrett : One of the nurses found certain letters under the girl's mattress, and handed them to witness, who sent them to Sir John Findlay. who, she knew, was acting for the parents. To Mr. O'Leary : She knew nothing about Dr. Claridge in the matter. They did not accept patients from him.

Mr. O'Le-ary : "Why not? Is it because he is not a member of the British Medical Association?"—"No; I have nothing against him. He is a Friendly Society man, and we do not accept patients from him." PLEA OF INNOCENCE. The father of the girl, William Strangman, said that when he spoke to Nattrass over his daughter's first disappearance, Nattrass 6aid he was as innocent as a new-born child. Witness went for a policeman, and eventually obtained possession of his daughter." Nattni.-s said that, if witness had not gone to the police, hfj would have had the daughter "fixed up." Witness's wife called Nat£rass a scoundrel, and said he ought to.

be put in gaol. This was a day or two after the daughter's return from absence at Napier and elsewhere —somewhere about 12th February. Dr. Mackenzie suggested lie should ring up Dr. Claridge to come and examine the girl and find how long she had been, pregnant. Witness recalled the visit of Dr. Mackenzie at midnight on 7th March. 1919, to his house to tell them that Edith has escaped. Dr. Mackenzie behaved in a very erratic manner. Mrs. Strangman suggested going for the police. Dr. Mackenzie said it was no good, not worth it. Let the girl have her fling for twelve months, he said. They could do nothing, as she was over age. Then Mackenzie ran away, saying he had to get up early for a case. Witness rang un the hotel, and found Nattrass was not there. The police were inquiring, and ultimately he found the girl at Nelson. He forced Nattrass to divulge where 'she was. Witness went over to Nelson, and brought her back. When Nattrass came back, she went out one evening, and did not return. "I WANT YOU, EDIE." Witness and his brother in a search for the girl saw Nattrass's car at the back of the theatre, and they waited. At the end of the piece Nattrass and Mackenzie came out with his daughter arm-in-arm. Witness put his hand on his daughter, and said, "I want you, Edie." Mackenzie got hold of the daughter, and tried to get her away. Witness called him a low brute, and slapped him on the face. Witness's brother struck Nattrass. Edith came with her father. Nattrass and Mackenzie followed witness and his daughter home. The daughter disappeared again in June, and had never been back home since. He had taken civil proceedings against Nattrass for damages, and had received, after paying expenses, about £370,- which had been put away in ( the Savings Bank for the daughter's benefit. DOCTOR'S ALLEGATIONS DENIED. Mr. Macassey : "You have never asked the doctor to perform an illegal operation on your daughter?"—"No, it never entered my head." Witness added that he could not understand what had prompted Dr. Mackenzie's allegations that hie had offered to mortgage his furniture to pay for an illegal operation on his daughter. He only wished' he could express what he thought of Dr. Mackenzie. Mr, Macassey : "In his affidavit, Dr. Mackenzie also says he looks upoD the girl's mother as a woman with no sense of duty to her daughters; that she was quite incapable and irresponsible." Witness : "I can't understand how he could say that, when ho did not know my wife. She was a most loving mother, and we were a very happy family until this happened."

To Mr. O rLeary : He had never Seen or spoken to Dr. Claridge before Dr. Mackenzie suggested a consultation, with Dr. Claridge. He rang up Dr. Claridge on Sunday, 2nd March, and asked him to oome round. He could not say how much earlier it was that Dr. Mackenzie suggested the consultation, on the ground that Dr. Olaridge usually acted as his anaesthetist.

Mr. O'Leary: "Dr. Claridee has stated that you asked him to perform an operation—an illegal operation—and he would be paid £50. Is that true?"—"lt is absolutely false." To Mr. Skerrett : He was twice in Dt. Mackenzie's house before the girl went to the hospital in Brougham-street. He was quite sure that when his daughter rang up from Nattrass's office for her mother to go with her to Dr. Mackenzie's, it was before she went to Hastings. Nattrass had said he knew, a doctor at Napier, who would have fixed the girl up had witness not gone to the police.

To Mr. Macassey: The only time h« went to Claridge's house was when ha went to pay his bill, after the girl had gone away from the hospital. FRIENDLY HELP. John William Wolfe, builder, said' ha had known the Strangmans for about twelve years, boarding with them at Napier before they came down to Wellington. Mrs. Strangrrian was a devoted mother md a capable woman, who had done her best to have her children educated. He had lived near the Strangmans in Wellington. Edith' Strangmaa had told witness's wife of her condition, and had asked witness to ring up Nattrass, and ask him to go to her parents' house and make a clean breast of it. She thought it was up to him to tell her parents. Witness did as she requested. Nattrass told him that if he had been left alone everything could have) been fixed up, and nobody would have, baen any the wiser. Mrs. Strongman was then recalled. In cross-examination by Mr. O'Leary, she' stated that the first she heard of Dr. Claridge was when Dr. .Mackenzie suggested a consultation with him.

To Mr. Maoassey : When her daughter was examined by Drs. Mackenzie and Claridge she had no idea of any purpose but a fitness for an operation for adenoids. POWER OF COURT. At this stage, when the question of adjournment was raised, Mr. Skerrett remarked that it seemed to him seriously that the Court had no jurisdiction to proceed. « Mr. Justice Chapman : "That will have to be legally argued, and we shall nave to know on what basis. I suppose it depends on something in the formal proceedings of the Board." Mr. Macassey said he proposed to call evidence on the point, - Albert Edwin Briggs, Hansard reporter, read notes of evidence of proceedings . before the Medical Boafd in, connection with the inquiry into the charges against Dts. Mackenzie and Claridge. The evidence of Dr. Olaridge confirmed the evidence already given as to the removal of the girl from the private hospital. Dr. Mackenzie's evidence admitted the meeting of Claridge, Nattrass, and himself, where arrangements were made for the purpose of getting the gn-1 away from the hospital. This, said Mr. Maoassey, proved conspiracy.

To Mr. O'Leary : The Strangmaas were not in the room when Dr. Claridge's evidence was given, nor w.ea-e the doctors present when the Strangmajis gave their evidence.

At this stage the Court was adjourned until Monday at 10.30 a.m. 1,