END OF CASE

Evening Post, Volume C, Issue 90, 13 October 1920, Page 6

END OF CASE

AGAINST THE DOCTORS

COUNSEL'S PLEA OF EX-

TENUATION

COURT RESERVES JUDGMENT.

' The case against the two Wellington doctors, Francis Wallace Mackenzie and

Henry Arthur Herbert Claridge, came to a dose on the third day of hearing by the Full Court yesterday afternoon. On the Bench were Honours Sir Bassett Edwards; Mr. Justice Chapman, and Mr. Justice Herdman. The charge against the doctors was, briefly, grave impropriety in a professional respect in being concerned in the abduction" of a girl, Edith Kathleen Strangman, from her parents and a private hospital^ and handing her over to her seducer, Howard Nattrass. Full details have already been published.

Mr* P. S. K. Macassey, of the Crown Law Office, appeared for the Medical. Board; Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. Arthur Fair, for Dr. Mackenzie; and Mr. H. F. O'Leary for Dr. Claridge. Mr. T. M. Wilford watched the case on behalf o£ Howard Nattrass and Edith-Kathleen Strangman-.' Dr. Mackenzie is 66 years of. age, and Dr. .Claridge 52 years of age. Evidence was concluded in the forenoon, and during the whole afternoon counsel for the defence addressed the Court in extenuation of the conduct of their clients. Mr. Macassey replied, and the Court reserved its decision. DOCTOR'S DEFENCE. Mr. Skerrett submitted that the doctors concerned thought it was within their legal rights to act as they did. No doubt they ought to have gone further, and •■considered what were their obligations as medical men. They acted" on the spur of the moment. Mr. Justice Eerdman :' "Nattrass said the scheme of putting the girl in the hospital was bogus. There never was any genuine intention of putting the girl into hospital for any operation." Mr. Skerrett submitted that th© witness had used language very loosely, and mentioned Dr. Mackenzie's explanation that the id«a was to have an operation to keep the girl in the hospital out of danger. The scheme was changed' on the night of 7th March, when they sought to get possession of the girl. The fact that the girl had no clothes at the hospital indicated that there had been] no long-hatch»d plot. The relevant point was whether Dr. Mackenzie did this to save the girl from an improper operation. The question was whether Mackenzie was influenced in acting as he did, by the suggestion anade to him by Nattrass and the girl that the parents desired an illegal operation to be performed on her. It was submitted that Nattrass was absolutely disinterested. Was thene any evidence throughout the wbolß inquiry of any act done by Nattrass with a view of having an illegal operation performed? "Someone, apparently," saidi Mr. Skerrett, "desired performance of an illegal operation upon this girl. Who was that person? One could only arrive at the answer by a process of exclusion and elimination. Did the statement by Nattrass on 14th February to Mrs. Strangman, ("If you had not put the matter into the hands of the police, I would have had the "natter fixed up all right," refer £o the visit to Napier? It was impossible, said counsel, to believe there were doctors in a small town, like Napier prepared to perform illegal operations. WHOM TO BELIEVE, t

Mr. Skerrett referred to the natural moral inclination to believe the evidence of parents. Could the Court be sure? Human nature and human judgment we're both fallible. In very few cases were the whole facts and the whole incidents revealed, to enable the Court to arrive at the ideal truth. Too often the wrong complexior and the wrong colour were given to innocent intentions. "I venture "tol think," said counsel, "there is no safer guide in determining where truth lies than to find out vyhether you have some document, some paper, some permanent thing, which cannot lie. You should ascertain its genuineness, examine it carefullj to see whether, to use a vulgarism, it is a 'plant.' From that make deductions." Counsel referred to the letters of the 3rd, 4th, and 7th March from Nat-trass to the girl as such guiding documents. Of the letter of the third 'he read quotations, and said no man could write such, stuff with any idea, of its coming before the cognisance of the Court or the public He would not read it all—their Honours could glance through"»copies in their hands—^it was a touchy sort of matter. The passages read, in the opinion of counsel, could not be interpreted _ as other than genuine expressions of feeling. Nattrass referred to his approaching trip to America, and wished he could take her with him to a place where people minded theii own business, and if ha could not marry her they could live together. Mr. Justice Chapman: '..'There was some reason why he could not marry her?"

Mr. Skerrett: "He had a wife from whpm he was separated." Counsel read a , further passage in which Nattrass expressed a hope that the child, would live. It, said further : "I will with the greatest pleasure provide adequate means for your confinement and for the support of our child, and do everything possible in that direction." Mr. Justice Herdman asked if the two doctors were justified in taking the girl away from the hospital, even if they believed that the parents intended to have an illegal operation performed. MERE ERROR OF JUDGMENT. Counsel did not deny that in his opinion Mackenzie was acting in. a professional respect, but he .did not think the affair was the infamous one suggested.. The girl had a right ,to live where she pleased, as there was no jurisdiction for the Court to grant a habeas corpus, if a girl desired to live elsewhere. The case was a mere error of judgment, not blackened by pelf or criminal intent. The incidents of the case reminded one of the pictures rather than of real life. The Court, he submitted, was not entitled to come to any conclusion that would deprive the professional gentlemen of their rights. Nattrasa had acquired an influence over Mackenzie's mind which had imbued the doctor withan enthusiasm for a, sort of romantic adventure. On a point of law, Mr. Skerrett con.tended that a judicial inquiry should lxave been held the Medical Board, which under the Statute had the power of suspending a, guilty practitioner, and, in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, mistakes 'might have occurred. THE SPUR OF THE MOMENT. On behalf of Dr. Claridge, Mr. O'Loary characterised the action of his client as an error of judgment committed on the spur of the moment. Did what Claridse did constitute a grave impropriety f Counsel submitted that Olandgt

acted honestly, but that he did not commit such an impropriety as to justify the Court removing him from the roll.

On a point of law, Mr. O'Leary submitted that what Dr. Claridge did was not in the pursuit of his professional calling and had no contractual relationship with Miss Strangman or her parents at the time when he entered the hospital. The Bench demurred' at this contention, on the ground that Dr." Claridg* was acting professionally. Mr. Macassey submitted again that Nattrass desired to have an illegal r sm.tioD and sent her away' to £y*piss? to have it done.

Mr. Skerrett: "I thought you hai abandoned that line."

Mr, Macassey denied this, and pre ceeded to contend that when the police were informed of it Nattrass went to' Napier to prevent it, and took^p a different attitude. Subsequently he concocted the scheme with Dr. Mackenzie of getting the girl into hospital and out again into his hands. \

Traversing the evidence, counsel urged that Mackenzie must have examined the girl before the 4th February, because Mrs. Strangman said the girl rang her up from Nattrass's office to say she had seen Dr.\ Mackenzie, and after 4th February she was not' employed in Nattrass's office. The whole evidence of Nattrass indicated that there was a scheme to put the girl" into hospital-*nd get her out again. Mr. Macassey contended again that in the letters there wai not a suggestion by the , girl that her parents wished her to undergo an illegal' operation. On the other hand, he quoted a passage which indicated, •he contended, that some earlier schema had been contemplated." „- ' '

BLACKENING THE PARENTS. " If these people," said Mr. Macassey, "had come before the Court, and-con-fessed that they had been caught on thej hop, as it were, by Nattrass, -it would not have been'so bad. They did not do that; they came here into this . Court and sought to blacker the character of the old parents of this girl. I ask the. Court to believe the evidence which,has been given by the two parents.and Mr. Wolfe. This business has been a terrible thing to them. Nattrass lias brought disgrace upon them, and now these three men, two of them doctors, come into this Court'and swear that the old people approached them and persisted every, day in asking them to procure an illegal,, operation. Your Honours have heard' their evidence; they, were cross-examin-ed thoroughly, and I venture to say that in not one point of their evidence were they/shaken. ■ ■ .': In answer to legal points raised, Mr. Macassey submitted that the finding of the board had no legal effect. All that was required was that the board should come to some opinion.

The Court reserved its decision.