MANAWATU DAILY TIMES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1918. CASE FOR INQUIRY.

Manawatu Times, Volume XL, Issue 14068, 26 November 1918, Page 4

MANAWATU DAILY TIMES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1918. CASE FOR INQUIRY.

A decree in divorce very briefly reported in Wellington papers as having been granted in that city on Wednesday last revives memories of the decision of a Court-martial held over twelve months ago. The reference to the divorco proceedings contained in. a metropolitan contemporary runs as follows:—-"Jessie Louisa Hotop sought a divorce from her husband, Dr. Francis Rudolph Hotop, on the grounds of habitual drunkenness and ill-treat-ment. Respondent was a medical officer in the employ of the Defence Department. After hearing the evidence, His Honour said it was a pity the department should place such a man in charge of soldier patients. He granted a decree nisi, 1o be made absolute in three months." If the Dr. Hotop in question is identical with the medical officer referred to in the Court-martial it may be expected that some immediate application will be made for a review of a sentence passed upon Private H. H. Thompson of Wanganui, who was charged with having knowingly made a false statement affect-

ing the character of an officer." According to published reports of the hearing of this case Thompson had entered as a volunteer in 1916, and, having failed to stand the test of training, was assigned a place in the Base Eecords Office. While still engaged there he; was drawn in the ballot, and in August, 1917, was called for examination at Featherston before a Medical Board consisting of Lieut.-Col. T. O. Guthrie and Captain F. E. Hotop, who passed him as lit for active service. Thompson wrote first to the Adjutant at the Featherston Camp, and then to the Camp Commandant, com•plaining of the finding of the Medical Board, and it was in the later letter that he used the words upon which the charge against him was based. They are quoted in the case of the report as follows: —"No medical examination of me is of any value when either examiner is noticeably under the influence of alcoholic liquor. This was so in the case of the examiner reporting on me on August 8." It was admitted by the accused that his statement as to the insobriety of a member of the Medical Board was directed against Captain Hotop, his justification for his conclusion in this respect being apparently a flushed appearance and irascible manner. Among the evidence taken on behalf of the prosecution, was that of Dr. Guthrie and Dr. Deck, the latter of whom was a member of another Medical Board sitting in the same room. Both spoke to Dr. Hotop's sobriety on the day in question. But the Court refused to admit in support of the sincerity of Thompson's statement, any evidence as to Dr. Hotop's general reputation for sobriety or otherwise, holding that his condition at the time of Thompson's examination was alone the matter in point. In the result Thompson was adjudged guilty of the charge brought against him, and sentenced to 112 days' detention. The sentence was regarded at the time as an exceedingly severe one. What must be thought of it now in view of the commentary of the Chief Justice? Thompson was adjudged guilty of "knowingly" making a false statement "affecting the character" of an officer. According to Sir James Allen that officer is not now, and has not been for some time, in the employment of the Defence Department. In view of all the circumstances it is due to Thompson, the Defence Department, Dr. Hotop, and the men on service that the whole matter should be cleared up. Another point: Should an individual, who is an habitual drunkard, be permitted to remain in practice as a physician? On the face of it it would seem not. Where such cases exist the British Medical Association should in its own interests, and in that of the public, take steps, if there is any statuary provision therefor, to have the individual concerned struck off the roll. If there is no such provision the Legislature should be called upon to remedy the defect.