MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS

Evening Star, Issue 17482, 13 October 1920, Page 7

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS

THE WELLINGTON CASE. Continuing his evidence before the PuH Court at Wellington yesterday, Dr F. W. Mackenzie said Dr Claridge know the medical aspect of the case, but nothing eke. Nattrass told him sll about it. When they 1 were all together "witness- unfolded a proposition he had to make. He believed the firit thing he told them was that they were going to take the girl away. They had a long talk about it. Nattraeß and Dr Claridge looked up a book of law to ascertain the legal position. The book was called 'Justice of the Peace Act.' (Laughter among learned counsel). Witness said he was responsible for the scheme. He was the "brains" of it.

Mr Skerrettt ''Well, they might have got a more ingenious inventor." Sir Rassett Edwards : " And the others were responsible for the law;" Witness said he had considered"" the moral aspect. Later on witness denied having told Detective Rawle that Nattraas was not assisted by him. As a matter of fact, he had done* tho whole thing himself, and did not need assistance. He had not mentioned tho scheme to Dr Claridge till Nattrass came. This finished the evidence.

Mr Gkerrett said he was not prepared to take the responsibility of calling Miss Strangman, beoause it was only on tho ground of giving testimony against her parents that her evidence was relevant. He had no objection to her being called and examined by an officer of the court. Sir Bassett Edwards said counsel must take their own course.

Mr Macassey said he was not prepared to call her.

Mr C. P.- Skerrett, K.C., Mackenzie's counsel, then addressed the Court. Ho contended that letters written by Nattrass and the girl wore genuine letters, and went to show there was no conspiracy on the part of Mackenzie, who was acting purely for the girl's benefit. Counsel went en to show that a parent could noft obtain a writ of Habeas Corpus, as the girl was over the age of 18 years, and could live with whom she pleased. Ho quoted many authorities in support. Mr v H. F. O'Leary, on behalf of Dr Claridge, stated that the ense against his client, as in the case of Dr Mackenzie, was-Dr Claridge's own story. He submitted that on the night of the visit to the hospital Dr Claridge was caught at an unguarded moment, and did not have full opportunity of considering what he was ttovng into, and committed an error of judgment. _ He acted on the spur of the moment. He contended that what was done on the night of the abduction was not done in the pursuit of his profession. Mr O'Leary said his obligations to the patient had ended, but tho Bench dissented from this view, holding that Dr Claridge did enter tho hospital in the capacity of a doctor. Mr. P. S. K: Macassey, for the Medical Association, submitted that Dr Claridge knew when he examined the girl at midday of the Monday of the abduction that she >vas going to be taken away. He said these doctors had come before tho Court and endeavored to blacken, the character of the girl's parents by swearing that they approached them with a view to an abortion being procured. Judgment was reserved.