DOCTORS CHARGED

Evening Post, Volume C, Issue 88, 11 October 1920, Page 7

DOCTORS CHARGED

WITH GRAVE IMPROPRIETY; MOTION TO STRIKE OFF ROLL -. LEGAt-QTJESTION-RAISED., The extraordinary case, commenced* b©<. fore the Full Court on Friday last, when! an. application was made to have two/ Wellington doctors struck off the roll ofS medical practitioners on the ground, of"; gravo impropriety on their part ihi -»', professional respect, was continued to-j; day. The medical men in question 'awe. Drs.. Francis Wallace : Mackenzie andj * Henry Arthur Herbert Claridge. Tha; action was brought under the Medicals' Practitioners Act, 1914, section. 22, the' 1; allegations being that botli doctors com-' mitted a grave impropriety in a. profea-i; sional sense in being concerned in thai abduction from her parents of a. girl,. Edith Kathleen Strangman, on the 7th£ March, 1919, the girl .then being eighteen ■ years three months of age. On the Bench were their Honours-Bilf-Bassett Edwards, Mr. Justice Chapman,;, and Mr. Justice" Herdman.

Mr. P. S. K. Macassey represented thai; New Zealand Medical Board, and Mr.;' C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr.,; A. Fair, appeared for Dr. Mackenzie, ,-• and Mr. H. i l. O'Leary for Dr. Claridge.f.' Mr. T. M. Wilford watched proceedings] on behalf of Howard Nat-trass, an in-: terested party, and 1 Edith Strangraan. . THE CHARGES. .:•'* Charges were laid specifically againstl each defendant. Mackenzie was charged! that on 7th March, 1919, "he committed! i a grave impropriety in a professional re-' spect, in that he conspired with HowardlNattrass, the seducer of Edith Kathleen Strangman, being then 18 years and three months old, being a patient under his. care, to take her out of the custody o£ her parents, and to deliver her over to JTattrass; and that he did in. pursuance of such design, by deception, induce tha ■ mother of the -irl to take her and- leave her at Nurse Vickers's private hospital in Brougham-street, Wellington!; and) that late at night on the date aioresaid, with the aid of Henry Arthur Herbert Claridge, medical practitioner, he took ; tho girl, from the, hospital ■without the knowledge or consent cf her parents,, and without the knowledge or consent ofV; tho matron, he delivered her to he]}! seducer, Howard Nattrass."

Similarly, the defendant Clar&lge was' charged that "on 7th March, 1919, he' committed a grave impropriety in a. pro-1 Sessional respect in that he conspired with'"' one Howard Sfattrass, the seducer o£Edith Kathleen Strangman, a patient] under the- care of Francis Wallace Mackenzie ... to take the said Edit-hii Kathleen Strangman out of the custody, of her parents, and to deliver her over to!'; tho said Howard Nattrass; and- in thatP on tho date aforesaid he assisted Francis Wallace Mackenzie to take her from the^ private hospital wherein- the girl' thenwas, without the knowledge or consent ofi'< her parents, and without the knowledge; or consent of the matron of the private*! hospital, and delivered her to her* seducer. . . ."

At the resumption of proceedings to-;! day evidence was given by Charfes John Brake (secretary of the l^ew ZealandM Medical Board), who stated that a meet-i ing was held on the 10th December, : 1919, attended by Drs. Makgill (Chiefil Health Officer), W. .• S. Passes, J* S,i Elliott. Irving (Christchurch), Ferguson,^ and Hughes (Dunedin). Witness -was!} present as secretary, and Drs. Maeken~'zie and Claridge attended to answer cet-; tain oharges—those stated in the presentapplication. Mr. and Mrs. Strongman)' and Drs. Claridge and Mackenzie ga.ve/"j evidence, aiter which, the board! delibjsr-^ t ated. f

Mr. Skerrett submitted that all thrfj Court could consider was 1 what iesolutioni/1 was arrived- at. He referred to the casaj of M'Carthy versus the Wellington City:f Corporation as authority. The only vrayij they could obtain the opinion of theij board' was by resolution of the board.! The board should have applied to thai Court for an order for the. removal..of? the names from the register.

A COMPLETE MINUTE. The Court asked for a, complete mm* ute of the proceedings before the board., This was put in. The resolution was tot the effect that the board should; approach the Attorney-General in terms of! 1 section 22 of the Medical Practitioners Act, 1914, with, a view of obtaining permission to bring the matter before the Supreai« Court. This resolution was, on the'-motion of Br. Mak'gill, Chief Med;-: ical Officer, reached after due consider-" ation of the evidence.

Sir. Skerrett then. submitted: that tho jurisdiction of the Court was founded on; section. 22 for power to remove the offending practitioner from the roll. In England there had to be an adjudication of the guilt of the medical practitioner. In the present case there had' been no adjudication, nor was there & determination to apply to havo the two doctors' names removed -from the register. The idea seemed to be to send 1 the case to the Supreme Court to let it take what action it deemed fit. An adjudication must always be expressed, and the Court could not infer grave impropriety from the resolution put in.

Mr. Macassay submitted 1 that these '; was a difference in procedure between:' England and New Zealand in such cases. In England the findings of the Medical Board had legal operation and effect, and! appeal lay from them to the Court. In '-. 'JSew Zealand the Board had no need to '. act judicially. The board could act ort^i its own knowledge, and 1 need not, in--1 deed, make any investigation. ■ ,

Before the board, continued counsel, were specific charges; these were readout—charges of grave impropriety in a professional respect. The. board heaid: the evidence and deliberated, and lie biibmitted' he was entitled to show what opinion the board^ came to, and having come to the opinion resolved that steps should be taken under section 22. Having come to that resolution ie submit-tedi the board must have been convinced of the guilt of the accused, and decided! to take steps under section 22. His^Honour the presiding Judge said the Court would not decide the matter at present, as it was entirely new. The' objection would be formally noted.

The witness continued his evidence, stating that the opinion of the members was that the two medical practitioners were guilty of the charges ■ made. The numbers of the board were unanimous. Then Dr. Makgill i^jved the resolution, which was carried unanimously.

To Mr. Skerrett : Opinions were expressed in a round-table discussion of the board that the statements of the doctors were not satisfactory. No other resolution was put to the board than Dr. Makgill's. The resolution was quoted in a ietter sent to the two doctors— at any Tate, the substance was given. Mr. Skerrett : "Th* first witness examined was Dr. Claridjre ?!'—"Yes.' 1 "Was Dr. Mackenzie in the room?"— ■'No, lie was in the passage by the door." ■ .■■•-._.'.. ".Was he invited to 'be-pre^n.t>by,..th.9

.board?" —"I don't think so; I should prefer not to speak positively on that point." "Was any invitation given to Dr. Claridgo to remain?"—" Yes." , "The next witnesses were Mr. and Mrs. Strongman—they were in together ?"—" Yes." "They answered the questions indifferently ?"~"Yes." "Was Dr. Mackenzie present?"— *'No."

"Was he invited to be present?"----"No."

The witness said' nothing was said or implied as to any invitation. To Mr. O'Leary: Dr. Somerville, of Auckland, a member of the board, was notified of the meeting, but wrote -stating he.could not be present. Blr. O'Leary : "Can you tell us, Mr. Drake, who made the, complaint against these doctors?"

.Mr. Macassey : "I object to that." My. O'Leary: "I wish to know i£ it yiois any member of the board." Sir Bassett Edwards.: "I don't Know ■that it matters." . , . Mr. O'Leary pointed out. that the accuser might also be sitting as judge. Mr. Justice Chapman said there might he no other way. A member might act on general' rumour. Dr. Robert H. Makgill, Chief Medical Officer, said he attended the hoard meeting on the 10th December, 1919. Specific charges were made against Drs. Claridge and Mackenzie. Evidence was given •by the doctors and Mr. and Mrs. Strongman. Mr. Macassey: "Could you give the Court the opinion of the board?" Mr. Skerrett: "I object. We can only have wh*at took place."

The witness said that the opinion was expresrcd that Drs. Claridge and Mackenzie had been guilty of a. grave impropriety, and the. case should go on to the. Attorney-General. The opinion was unanimous.

Mr Skeri'ett asked if any attempt was made to put a resolution declaring the two doctors were guilty of grave impropriety. The witness said all the members were in agreement that,the.case should go before the Supreme Court under section 22. The board considered the men guilty, and decided to send it on to the Court. No resolution, was passed except the one to send the matter on to the AttorneyGeneral. I . After briefly stating the legal position, Mr. Macassey closed the case. - DR. CLARIDGE'S EVIDENCE. '■ Henry Arthur Herbert Claridge was called by Mr. O'Leary in evidence for the defence. He was a duly qualified medical practitioner, qualifying in 1894 at the University of Durham as Bachelor of Surgei'y and Medicine, He came to New Zealand about 1900, and had been practising in Wellington since the beginning of 1917. He was employed by the United Friendly Society, and livetf at No. 17, Tinakori-road. Her /had. known Dr. Mackenzie twenty years. He had worked with Dr. Mackenzie.for many', years, generally giving anaesthetics. Mr. O'Leary : ■."You know- Mr. and Mrs. Strahgmari?"—'"l"'do now." Witness described his first meeting ■with Mr. Strangman in February, ,1919, when a middle-aged man came to him at the Zig-Zag stop on.'theTho^■ndon-quay■ line, and asked him if he knew where Dr. Claridge lived. Witness introduced himself, and Strangman said he wanted to see him on business. They went to witness's house, and in the consulting room Strangman told him his daughter., ■was in trouble through her employer, and^j asked the doctor if he could get her out of the' trouble. Strangman offered up to £50. Witness refused. He could not J remember whether Stratagman gave thej name of the employer. He had kept no I record of the visit. It would be" well on I to the end of February—the week before, the girl was taken to the hospital—on a [Wednesday.

Continuing, the witness said Dr. Mackenzie had asked him to see a girl, as ho was going out of the hospital. Thlerei was a ■wound on the girl he wanted'the witaiess to examine. The two ..walked all , xound Roxburgh-street and neighbour-] hood, bufc they could not find the Moils© ■where the girl lived. This was on a Saturday, shortly after 1 o'clock. Next morning, while he was in bed, the bedside 'phono rang, and at the other end iStrangman announced himself, saying: "I expected you at my house,yesterday with Dr. Mackenzie, to see my daughter." Witness explained over the telephone that lie. could hardly go, as the girl was Mackenzie's patient. Strangraan said they had rung up, and found Mackenzie was out of town. Witness finally consented to go, and went 'about 4 o'clock on the' Sunday afternoon.. Ha saw Strangman, his wife, and their daughter. It was Sunday, the :2nd March. Up to this time—to the time of going to the house—he had not the slightest idea that Stra,ngman was the man who had been to him the previous Wednesday about getting the .girl out of trouble. He had never seen Mis. Strongman before, but he recognised Strangman as the man who had been to see him. They asked him to examine the daughted, -who was lying in bed. ■ Witness 1, asked .Mrs. Strangman to remain. Witness examined the daughter, and iouiid' her tlmee months gone in .pregnancy. There was the scar Dr Mackenzie had spoken about. Strangman there and then offered him £50 to get the girl out of trouble. He offered him £25 down and £25 at the end of three months. Witness said he could sob no cause whatever 1 to interfere, as the'girl wasin.no danger, j He refused absolutely to interfere with ' the girl. Strangma.ri came again the following Wednesday, the sth March, and besought him to get the girl out of trouble, to save tlie family the disgrace. Witness again Tofused to"havo' anything, to do with thecasc. He turned the-man::' away. On 7th March' Mackenzie asked him to go'to'his" house. Witness went, and found there Mrs: 1 Strangman and her daughter Ho was asked to examine the girl, he understood, as to her fitness to undergo an adenoid operation. Mrs. Strangman could easily see him examine the girl. He found the scar had nearly healed. He told Mrs. Strangman it was quite hopeless to have anything like an illegal operation. Mrs. Strangman said something about something having to be done, and they still had the money. Witness left the house after being there only quarter of an hour. He did not know Nattrass then, and did not see him at the house. THE MEETING' WITH NATTEASS. On the evening of 17th March, Mackenzie came round about 8 o'clock. Nat- ■ trass rang up about 10 o'clock to know if Mackenzie was at witness's house, and later Nattrass arrived. Witness had not met Nattrass before. He knew that Nattrass was the father of Miss Strongman's child. He did not know anything of ,i. scheme up to this time to take tlio girl to the hospital and get her. out of the hands of her parents. His examinations of the girl were merely in the nature of a consultation with Dr. .Mackenzie. Alter Nattras3 came, the, matter >yes discussed.

The witness then 3aid he was told the girl was to be taken out of the Brougham-street Hospital that night and taken to a woman at Paremata. where she could slay until she could be removed to Nelson, where she might stay and have tiifc baby iu-peace. Mac-, kenzie had told him the pavenl-s wove <*oing to have" the.gir] taken to a place in Thomdon to,have an operation performed. He believed he was told this after Nattrass had com© to the house. He was certain.-the- parents were determined to haw an illegal operation : per-, formed on the girl, and; that she, was being got away'from the hospital to save her "from that. The risks of taking ths girl out of the hospital were .discussed

with Dr. Mackenzie and Nattrass, but they arrived at the conclusion they were committing no crime. Witness denied again any knowledge of any plan before: Nnttrass arrived, that evening. VISIT TO THE HOSPITAL. Witness then described the scene outside the hospital.;;' N&ttrass pulled up the or on the liill just before approaching the Brougham-street Hospital. Witness sat in the car with Nattrass. Mackenzie wont inside, but came out again in a few minutes. Mackenzie invited witness to go in. The girl, Mackenzie said, seemed half asleep; she would not come j out. for him.. He asked witness to go j in. Witness saw a- nurse there, and said j he could not go in. Mackenzie said he . would keep the nurse engaged in the kitchen. Witness "went upstairs to Miss Strangman's room and said: "Mr. Nattrass is outside in the motor-car waiting for you." She said: "They have taken all my clothes, except this dreEsing- ■ gown." -Witness said there was a fur ! coat in the car, and the girl walked j out in the dressing-gown to the car. They drove away back to witness's house, where he gave the girl some clothes. He saw the girl drive a-way with Nattrass, for Pai'cmata, he understood. This was the last he ea.w of the girl for some considerable time.

To Mr. O'Leary: He had looked to Mackenzie for payment, and had not re- : ceived anything from Nattrass for his connection with this affair. Strangman went to his house and offered payment. Witness did not l'eceive any money from him. His impression was that Strangmaii was after information about the girl. To Mr., Macassey: It would be on the 27th or 28th. February that Strangman first came to His house. ' '" Mr! Strarigman says he nevev went before the day he offered payment." Witness: "Mr. Strangman is a liar.' Witness said that he told Chief Detective Boddam about Strongman—about a man who had offered him £50 and pesterec 1 his life out to perform an illegal operation on his daughter. They were discussing some West Coast cases at the time. Mr. Macassey: ■ "I suggest, Dr. Claridge, this story about Strangman is a deliberate concoction?" Witness: "You are making a- wrong impression." Mr. Macassey: " Let me read the evidence you gave before the Medical Board. You stated there: ' I did not know the mail at this time.' " Witness: "I did not know him." " Did he not give his name, Strangman?".-^" If he tlirt, 1 forgot it." "Did. you not go to look for hid house?"—"l had no idea of the name of the people w© were going to see." "Did Mackenzie not tell you the name of the people ?"—"lf ho did it did not convey anything to my mind." ■ "You ask the Court to believe that when Dr. N Mackenzie took you to find th'a house, he did" not know the names of the people?"—"!. do not know." "Didl it not occur to 3'ou to ask Dr. Mackenzie the names of the people?"— "No;.if Mackenzie did tell me, it conveyed no;more to my mind than Brown or Robinson. ■■ I did not attach any importance to it." I

"To what purpose did he ask you to examine the jrirl after you had already declared her fib for a nasal operation?" —"Well, as to whether the scar might indicate a certain disease was specific."

"You had said on Sunday this girl was fit for an operation; why did you go to Mackenzie again on the 7th March ?"— "Becausg he asked me to go. Things might have altered since, Sunday. Dr. Mackenzie asked me to examine her again. ..'! . i -'■ "IDLE CURIOSITY." Witness said that he did not know that the girl was going into hospital, and he did not know that-, Di\ Mackenzie had no intention of performing a nasal operation. He had told the 1 Medical Board he believed Mackenzie had; put her in the hospital! to Jake her away; again, but it was belief not'knowledge. ,

;.';My. Macassey 1, :. '.LWhJy. were you mixed up-with this affair at all?"—"It was out of curiosity." ■ ■ "Dr. Claridge, do you mean to say that as a medical practitioner?"—" Yes."

"You did that after - what you say about these old: people coming to you about performing an operation on this girl—you went out of idle curiosity?"— "Yes.'" - •■■•.■ ■ .■

To a question from the Bencß witness replied : "That is/the only .answer I can make. I did it out of idle: curiosity." Sir Bassett • Edwards : "Well, you went to the hospital out of idle curiosity. If you went out'of idle curiosity, why did you not stay in the car?" Witness : ."Mackenzie! came to the door, and explained the girl was only half awake. Nattrasg asked n;e to go inside. That was,.why.-I went."

Mr. Justice Chapman: "Did it not seem strange that Mackenzie did not come back to the car?.!'

Witness : "I understood he was having tea in the kitchen,. with, the night nurse."

At.this stage- the Court was adjourned until the afternoon.

At the resumption of proceedings, this afternoon the witness Claridge declared that the girl Edith Strangman told him that her parents kept her a close prisoner in mental and i physical torture. The room was a very small one, about 6by 8 feet. The girl was subjected to cruel treatment, he understood. He had no other informant than the girl whom he saw to be on the first Sunday of his visit a close prisoner. Mackenzie had told him that the girl had eaid that the parents were going io take her to a house' iii Thorndon to have .an illegal operation performed. The-girl had told huh so herself. The whole idea was_ to save the girl from such aii.Voperatioi). Mr. Macassey was about to readl an affidavit'of the^girl Strangman regarding ail application for habeas corpus, in, which he wanted the. witness to show ona word relating to anything like the oporj ation suggested. ... ■ .

Mr. . Skqrrett strongly objected to the use of such a docum«nt iv the cross-ex-, amination of a witness who knew nothing about.it. The only, operation referred to was an. operation the girl did not.wish, to be performed w the hospital; where witness-had previously stated there wa3 no . fear of any illegal operation being performed. The assumption was that the girl referred, to the nasal operation. My. Macassey: v You realise you are making a terrible .charge against these old people, Dr. Claridge?"—"l do realise it." ' ■'

" You still state on your oath, Dr. Claridge,. that, these old. people .asked yot- to perform'an illegal operation tn their daughter?"—"l adhere to every word I have said."

Sir Bassett Edwards : "You say, Dr. Claridge, that these people, the Strangmans, asked you to perform an illegal operation on their daughter?—"], do. your Honour." ''And your only idea was to save her from her parents?"—" Yea, your Honour."

"Did it not occur to you, Dr. Claridge, that ail you had to do was to tell these parents who you say proposed to Dr. I Mackenzie- and yon an illegal operation lon their daughter that unless they '.undertook not to have one performed, you would go.to the'police- and,'inform them? Would '■ not"that have made the girl safe?"—"l think it-would;"•■ This closed the case for Clarulge. (Proceeding.)