YOUNG WOMAN'S DEATH

Evening Star, Issue 22351, 29 May 1936, Page 12

YOUNG WOMAN'S DEATH

INQUEST FOLLOWS EXHUMATION LENGTHY EVIDENCE GIVEN DOCTORS IN WITNESS BOX Lengthy evidence was heard hy the coroner (Mr J. R. Bartholomew) today when the inquest on Mora May Mackenzie, aged 29 years, whose body was exhumed at Anderson’s Bay Cemetery on April 24, was resumed. Six witnesses had completed their evidence when the lunch adjournment was taken.

Chief Detective J. B. Young conducted the inquest for the police, and Mr A. G. Neill appeared for the deceased’s relatives and the witness M'Kinnon. Mr C. J. L. White was also present, but the name of his principal was not disclosed. Arthur Roderick Ellis, Registrar of Births, Deaths, and Marriages, produced the death certificate, issued by Dr Moody, of Dunedin. The date of issue was April 14. 193 G, and the date of death was April 11. The cause of death was given as:—“Acute general peritonitis (for two and a-half days) ; septic abortion (eight days—my attendance) ; pelvic peritonitis.”

BURIED WITHOUT CERTIFICATE. Robert M‘Lean. undertaker, 219 George street, who had' previously given evidence of identification, said he obtained the body from the Braemar Hospital, and the deceased was buried about 11 a.m. on April 13. His son collected the death certificate, and took it to the Registrar after a copy had been taken. He received the certificate about 11 a.m. on the Tuesday morning (April 14), a day after the woman was buried. As far as he knew, there was no certificate in existence at the time the woman was buried. The Coroner: The witness had better explain why he went on with the burial without having a certificate. Mr Young: Did you make inquiries about the death certificate?—Yes, as to the nature of the illness and the doctor in attendance.

I was informed he was Dr Moody. From whom did you make the inquiries?—The deceased’s two sisters. I was told Dr Moody had attended the case and would give a certificate. Did you ask the Misses Mackenzie the cause of death?—No. I asked what the trouble was and was told it was peritonitis. Ho communicated with Dr Moody ns soon as ho could. Death occurred on Easter Saturday afternoon, and he communicated with Dr Moody on the evening of Monday. April 13. Mr Young: At that time the police were making inquiries?—Yes. EVIDENCE OF SISTER. Claire Lament Mackenzie, a single woman residing at 9 Manders street, North Dunedin, said deceased, her sister, was born in 1907, and followed the occupation of a typistc. Both par’ents were dead, and deceased had Jived with witness. Prior to March 20 last, her sister had not been keeping well—her general health was not good. She had been carrying out her usual work.

Mr Young; Who were her associates in her leisure hours?

.Mr. Neill; That is,rather a general question.

Mr Young: Did she belong to any club?—Not that I know of. Did she have airy male acquaintances?—l do not know much about her affairs.

Do you have any knowledge of a male acquaintance?—Yes. “ Who was it?” asked Mr Young, and when witness hesitated, Mr Neill suggested that she could write down the name.

“ There is no necessity to write it down,” said the Coroner. “ You must say candidly what you know.” Witness gave the name. Was he a single or married man?— Married.

Do you remember the exact date when your sister first took ill ?—l’m afraid 1 don’t. Would it be about March 20?—Yes. Did she have to take to her bed? — Yes. My sister took ill in the morning, and was unable to go to work. This is rather important. Can you tell me where she was on the evening prior to the day she took ill?—I cannot say. Can you say whether she went out?— No.

The illness, said witness, was atV.buted to an attack of influenza, and deceased stayed at home for two or three days. During the day she was at home alone; witness did not know if anybody called, but Miss Rishworth, who also stayed in the house, went home one lunch hour. M'Kinnon did not come to see deceased during those days. On the evening of March 20 her sister was taken to Anderson’s Bay and she remained there for one week. Witness did not visit her t»ere duringithat time. She was in no way concerned about her sister’s illness. Deceased returned home on March 27. Mr Young: Were you aware that she was transferred to the Chalet Hospital?—No. I was not home when she arrived back. Was she in the house alone then?— I am not quite sure. Was she in bed?—She was up and about. What was the state of her health?— She was still very weak. Did she say anything about her health ?—No. Were you not concerned?—No, Witness said her sister remained at homo till March 29, being very weak during the two days. She received no medical attention, and no one visited her. Deceased did not discuss her illness. Her condition became worse on the Sunday morning (Marc' ‘29), and Dr Moody was called in y witness, and ordered deceased’s removal to Braemar Private Hospital. Witness was not informed as to the cause of the illness, hut the doctor told her he thought deceased was suffering from an infection. Witness was not very much concerned.

Mr Young: Was it not obvious then that she was in a very bad way?— Yes. Witness continued that deceased remained at Braemar till April 5. Witness visited her, but did not know whether she had any other visitors. She was not aware that a certain event had occurred on the day her sister was admitted to Braemar. On April 5 deceased was removed to the Public Hospital. Deceased did not discuss her condition with witness, who took her hack to Braemar on April 8 because deceased complained that she was not getting proper care and treatment, and she wanted to be back under the care of Dr Moody. Witness did not know why sho had been removed from Dr Moody's care. She gradually sank and died on April 11. Deceased made no statement about her condition during her final stay at Braemar; witness could not say whether deceased know that there was little hope for her recovery. Deceased made a will, witness being aware at the time that one

was to be made. The will was made the uight before her death, so it was obvious to both of them that her condition was very low. Witness was aware of the cause of deeqased’s condition on the morning of her removal to the Public Hospital. Mr Young: Do you know who is supposed to bo responsible for her condition ?—No.

Did you tell the detectives you knew ? No. I told them what 1 thought. They asked me for the name of tier man friend, and 1 gave it. Have the medical and hospital expenses been paid?—The Braemar expenses have been paid by my sister. 1 made the arrangements for the funeral and Mr M'Lean did not question me with regard to the death certificate. He did not mention certificate ,at all. He just asked what her trouble was and 1 told him it was peritonitis. The Coroner; Did he not ask who the doctor was?—Oh, yes. Mr Young; Were you aware that your sister had been treated hy Dr Borne ?—No.

So when you called Dr Moody you were not aware that she had had previous medical attention ?—No. Mr Neill: Wore yon in the habit of discussing your affairs with your sister or she with you?—No. So that her list of acquaintances would not be discussed with you?— That is so.

When she was taken to the public hospital you knew of her condition. What was it?—She was suffering from scpticfcmia. DOCTOR CALLED.

A woman residing at Anderson’s Bay, said she was a friend of the deceased and visited deceased at the latter’s home on March 29. Deceased then had a dreadful cold and cough and it was eventually arranged that she should stay at witness’s home. Miss Mackenzie arrived at the house at about 8 p.m. Deceased’s condition became worse, and at her request Dr Borrie was sent for. M‘Kinnon telephoned for the doctor, who examined deceased. M'Kinnon was in the break-, fast room when the doctor called. It was decided that deceased should go to the Chalet Private Hospital. Dr Borrie made * the arrangements and M'Kinnon and witness took her to the hospital in the former’s car. They first went to Mander street to get Miss Rishworth, who had been telephoned from the Anderson’s Bay terminus. Miss Claire Mackenzie was not at the house and she had not been informed of her sister’s removal to the hospital. Mr Young; Why?—l don’t know. I certainly did not inform her. The Coroner: Who made the arrangements in regard to the Chalet Hospital?—Dr Borrie. Witness said she visited Miss Mackenzie twice at the Chalet Hospital, and she gave no information of her trouble. Witness did not know at that time the real cause of the trouble. It was arranged that deceased was to return to witness’s home as soon as she had recovered sufficiently, and she arrived on March ,24 in a taxi. Deceased was then quite well, hut was not eating and was in bed most of the time. She was fairly weak. Miss Rishworth was the only visitor. Dr Borrie called on March 25 and 27. Her condition improved by March 27. When informed that visitors were coming, Miss Mackenzie said she was going home, and r«'.e left at 11.30 a.m., catching a tram. Witness did not see her again, and had heard nothing from deceased as to the cause of her condition. Mr Young; When did yon first know of the real cause ?—On the Thursday before she died. Who told you?—Miss Pdshwoith. Have you any knowledge of her movements on March 39?—No. Mr Young requested the coroner to make a recommendation that witness’s name be suppressed. The police inquiries proved that she was an innocent yarty. She had given the police, every assistance. Out of goodness she had taken the deceased to her homo to look after her.

The Coroner: Y T our application is a very proper and commendable one. Under the circumstances no good purpose can he served by using the witness’s name or identity, I recommend accordingly. WHAT DECEASED SAID.

Dr Arthur Charles Belfield, a house surgeon at the Dunedin Hospital, said deceased was admitted on April 5, about 4 a.m., on the recommendation of I)r Moody. Witness' saw her upon admission, at which time ho had no knowledge of tho history of the case. The woman showed evidence of blood poisoning and septicasmia, and she was very ill’ He did not know the reason for her being sent to the public hospital. Dr Moody had _ recommended blood transfusion, and it was carried out. He questioned her as to her condition. Mr Young: Did sho tell you tho cause of her trouble.

When witness hesitated, the Coroner said: “ There is no medical privilege here. You must answer.” He replied that the woman had informed him that a certain event had occurred as a result of an operation performed about two or three weeks previously. Did she tell you who performed it?— Yes. She gave me the name of a woman. Did sho say where it was performed? —No.

Further examined, Dr Belfield said it would have been of no great assistance to him to know the exact nature of the operation. His opinion was that an instrument had been used. Deceased did not tell him who was the man responsible for her condition, and igave no information as to Mrs Clark’s identity. The woman received the usual medical treatment, and left on April 8, witness considering that there had been a slight improvement in her condition.

Mr Young: Do you think it was in her interests that she should have been removed that day?—No. She insisted on it herself.

Mr Neill: Why was she not placed on the dangerously ill list when admitted?—Personally, I don’t know. Is it your opinion that she should have been?—My opinion is that she should have been placed on the seriously ill list. Did her temperature charts indicate septicaemia?—They were consistent with it.

“ Did you notify the Health Department of this infection?” asked Mr Y r oung. The Coroner advised Dr Belfield not to answer the question as it might incriminate him in other proceedings. Mr Neill; Do you propose to tako advantage of that? Witness: Yes.

When you had evidence of this illegal operation, did you notify the police?—No.

How did you obtain this statement from the girl? Did you tell her that you would treat it as secret?—The information was volunteered to nie.

Was any promise made by you as to how you would use it?—No.

Did the patient ask you to treat it as confidential ?—No.

Did you receive something from Dr Moody on her admission?—A note recommending her admission to hospital. Anything further?—Must 1 answer that ? The Coroner; Yes.

Witness replied that Dr Moody suggested that she was suffering from puerperal infection.

Did he suggest any secondary matter for consideration ?—Yce. He outlined his treatment and suggested a complicating inflammation of the kid L neys. The Coroner said that the woman whose name had been mentioned was not at the inquest, and as far as the inquiries now went it would not be lawful to use the name. DR BORRIE’S EVIDENCE. Dr William Henry Borrie said he received a call on March 21 —he was absolutely certain of the date—to a home at Anderson’s Bay. He went there at 9 p.m. and saw Miss Mackenzie, who was sick and in pain. He asked her what was the trouble and she replied that she thought she was having a miscarriage. He knew that she was a single woman, as she was introduced as Miss Mackenzie. He recommended that she should go into a private hospital. There was no evidence as to the cause of the event being brought about. He telephoned the hospital to make arrangements for a bed. He called at the Chalet Hospital at 11.30 the same night, when the patient was iu bed. He called the following morning, when the nurse-in-eharge, whoso name he did not know, informed him of a certain event having occurred. An operation was performed later in the afternoon by witness, Dr White giving the anaesthetic. No authority was informed of the destruction of an object that might have been valuable evidence in a criminal charge. Questioned as to the commonness of single women experiencing certain events, Dr Borrie said he really could not tell how many cases he had met in the past 12 months. No idea at all?—I might have seen half a dozen.

Can yon give us anything more definite than that?—No.

Miss Mackenzie, said Dr Borrie, remained in the Chalet Hospital till March 24, when she was allowed to go homo on condition that she went to bed. Her condition while she was in hospital was quite satisfactory. The woman was anxious to leave. He saw her at Anderson’s Bay the following day. She had disobeyed his instruction to remain in bed, and she said she was perfectly well. So far as he could recollect, he had only made that one call at Anderson’s Bay. He did not agree to the woman going home. He next saw her on April 2 at the Braemar Private Hospital at the request of Dr Moody. She was feverish, and he was asked to give an anaesthetic so that Dr Moody could carry out an operation. Dr Moody knew that a similar operation had previously been carried out.

Mr Young: Do you know why the patient changed her doctor?—-Dr Moody told me that her friends had called him in. 1 mean by friends, her relations. On April 5, said Dr Borrie, he was again called to Braemar by Dr Moody, and Dr Ritchie was also in attendance. A consultation took place. The patient was seriously ill. It was felt that a blood transfusion was necessary, and that she would get it quicker at the Public Hospital. The possibility -of some other condition that they had failed to discover was also discussed. That was the last time he saw Miss Mackenzie. THE LATER TREATMENT. Dr Arthur Stanley Moody said he had known deceased quite well for four or five years. She called to see him in March last to discuss a certain condition. He did not discuss the matter beyond saying that if there was- anything of'a doubtful nature he would not .consider seeing her professionally, lie knew she was a single woman. He next saw her professionally at her own home in Mander street on March 29 —a Sunday, having been called by a message to his house while he was absent. He found Miss Mackenzie in bed. He did not question her. “In these cases I do not ask questions,” he added. The Coroner; You must understand, doctor, that there must be full disclosure and that ,you cannot claim privilege. , Dr Moody continued that lie made no examination and ordered her removal to the Braemar Hospital, where an immediate transfusion was made. He made no examination. He did not consider it wise, the’ transfusion being essential. He could not definitely say the cause of her illness; but she was very ill. He thought at the time it might have been septioeroia, but he was not certain. Mr Young: You made no examination or inquiries yet you knew she was ill.—She told mo that she had been in the Chalet. I will not examine such cases without another doctor being present. He was competent to carry out the treatment. ... Mr Young: I am not suggesting that. The woman was in Braemar for four days, said Dr Moody. Following the transfusion her condition improved. On April 2 she became ill again, and, as she had been a patient of Dr Borne, ho communicated with him. Her condition was not good, or ho would not have subjected her to an anaesthetic. He was not alleging any mefficiency on tlio p&rt of Di’ Borne. He never took notes of cases, as he did nothing without medical consultation. The examination made him more confident in his opinion that they had not' got down to the real cause of the girl’s illness. She was at no stage in a fit condition for an exhaustive examination. Mr Young: Would it not have been of assistance to you to hear from the patient the cause of her illness?—Not in the slightest.

POLICE AND PRESS CRITICISED. “ I am not responsible for what other people do,” said Dr Moody with some heat when being further questioned.

Mr Young: I do not suggest that for one moment. Her condition continued to get worse —I would not say that. Commencing to give evidence of the consultation between Drs Borrie, Ritchie, and himself, Dr Moody said ho could not see any reason why Dr Ritchie’s name should be brought into the matter.

“ I personally think I have had a very bad deal,” he declared. “ The Press have been unfair and the police have been unfair.”

Mr Young: In what way have the Press been unfair?

Dr Moody: In the report of the exhumation. I think. - that when the exhumation was ordered I, as a medical practitioner of a quarter of a century’s standing in Dunedin, should have been given notice and an opportunity to attend the post mortem. Mr Young: That is a matter for His Worship. If you have any complaint to make, you should make it to him. The exhumation was not a matter for the police. We only acted under directions from the coroner. _ Do you still maintain that the police have treated you unfairly in this connection.

Dr Moody: I think very unfairly; and the Press, too.

Mr Young: I am not concerned with the Press. What about tbe unfair treatment, by the police?

“ The matter must be left.” interposed the coroner. “ There is no good bringing in anything extraneous.” On April 5, at 2 a.m., the woman’s condition was definitely more serious, said Dr Moody, and, after the consul-

tation,. he suggested an immediate transfusion. Deceased was immediately removed to the Public Hospital, where he did not visit her. She was readmitted to Braemar on April 8, and he saw her within 20min of her return. It was about 4or 4.30. The explanation given for her return was that she was not satisfied with the attendance and treatment she had received in the Public Hospital. “ Before taking the patient out of the Public Hospital, I telephoned the house surgeon to find out her condition,” he said. All the reports from the hospital up to the date of removal were that she was doing satisfactorily. She was not on the seriously or dangerously ill list at the hospital. They asked me to take her out of the Public Hospital as she was very unhappy. I think it was the relatives or Miss Risk worth.” A SUDDEN CHANGE.

“We see her removed when her name was neither on the dangerously nor seriously ill list; yet within 40min we find her in a dying condition,” he explained. The Coroner: Was she ill when she was in the Public Hospital? Dr Moody: Professor Dawson said she was never ill.

Continuing, ho said that at Braemar the woman took an acute abdominal attack indicating an *acutc abdominal crisis.

Mr Young: Did not the history of her case suggest that as a possibil-ity?—-It did not. You say she was quite all right on the 3rd and she took seriously ill on the sth?—Hospital reports were that she was doing nicely. You knew from your own experiences that she was likely to collapse. She had done so when under your charge P—She did not collapse. In fairness to the house surgeon you rang up, who was he?—l think it was Dr Wilson. I will definitely say it was Dr Wilson. He said he thought the patient was better to remain, but_ in view of the fact that she was daily improving, according to the hospital reports, and that she was not on the dangerously or seriously ill lists and the girl wanted to leave, I took her away. And you say that a few minutes after she came back to Braemar her condition was grave?—Yes, absolutely grave.grave. Was she aware of the seriousness of her condition?—l would not say that she was aware on that day. Her condition next day was one that one would expect in a case of acute general peritonitis commencing. Her condition on April 10 gradually became worse and she died on the afternoon of April 11. She made a will on the day before she died.

The inquest was adjourned till the afternoon. >