EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 11346, 14 April 1900, Page 2 (Supplement)

EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE.

SENSATIONAL SUIT IN THE LAW ' COURTS.

A SUIT with many sensational features commenced in the High Court when the case of Crook v. Crook and Horroeks came on for hearing. : It was a petition presented by the husband, Mr. Herbert Crook, a medical man practising at Margate, paying for the dissolution of his marriage on the ground of his wife's alleged misconduct with co-respondent. Dr. Peter Horroeks, a medical specialist, of Brook-street, London. Both parties had answered denying the allegation. In Spelling .the ease, Mr, Inderwick said petitioner was a gentleman who had held several important' appointments at Guy's Hospital. Dr. Peter Hf.rrocks was a phy- ■ sician of high standing at Brook-street. Before he left the hospital petitioner met, courted, and married respondent. He then took one or two position in order to get an extended knowledge of his profession, and in 1891 he went to Margate, where he took a practice, and was doing very well when the ' unfortunate . circumstances happened . which he" (counsel) had to tell. In the year 1896 respondent was suffering from an internal complaint, and petitioner consulted with Dr. Horrocks on the point. The result was that in the early part of 1896 Mis. Crook paid a visit to Dr. Horroeks in London, with the knowledge of her husband, and on one or two occasions stayed at a nursing home in St. Thomas'-street. In August, 1897, Mrs. Crook found that she was pregnant, and in May, 1898, she gave birth to a son. When the question arose as to who was to In the godfather, Mrs. Crook suggested Dr. Horroeks. At first petitioner thought it would be "rather cheeky." but eventually Dr. HoiTOcks was consulted. He co sented, and sent the child a silver mug as a christening present. All went on well for a time, though petitioner noticed that his wife was not at. all well at times, and seemed to mope and appeared unhappy generally. Oh November 6, 1899. Dr. Crook was seated in his room, when his wife came in and said she had something to teh him, something of exceeding importance to him and to her, and if ho would not hear it she would have to communicate it to him in some other way, He asked her what it was all about, and she replied, after some hesitation, that she had broken the seventh commandment. He told'her not to talk nonsense, but she persisted in her statement, saying it was only too true, and that she had not mentioned it before to anyone because she did not wish to get other people into trouble. She then told him she had committed adultery with Dr. Horroeks. After some further, conversation the matter became so serious that petitioner asked respondent to put down in writing what, she had communicated to him.- He further asked her when she had done so, and she said when she went to see him in London. He placed before her the serious nature of the charge she was making, but she repeated that it was true, and that she thought it was the only reparation she could make. Respondent then wrote out a confession of misconduct, and petitioner with profound grief had come to the conclusion that he had only one course to pursue, and that was to institute the present suit. Since the confession in November last, respondent had repeated the statement to the sister of petitionei that all she had stated was the absolute truth. Counsel then read a number of letters that lad passed between the parties. One letter ran:' "My poor, lost deserted home, I cannot realise that I shall ever see it again. Everything to me seems a horrible dream. I wash it was so, and that I could recall the last teh years ot my life." Another communication ran: "I am often tortured by the thought that, as a punishment for my sin, my darling might be taken from me. ... I feel like a hunted criminal." On November 13, 1899, she forwarded to her husband another confession of her guilt, which was signed by her, her brother, and her husband's sister. Dr. Crook was' examined. Cross - examined by Mr. Carson: While in the hospital he had known Dr. Horrocks, and had the very highest opinion of his morality and honour up to last yeat. He was aware that he held a very high position in the medical profession, and an extensive practice, almost confined to ladies. He described the nature of the complaint from which his wife was suffering, which necessitated the visit to Dr. Horrocks. He did not agree that such a complaint would render a person imaginative, susceptible to impressions, and hysterical. It did so in about six out of every hundred cases. His wife was not in a state of extreme nervousness, at having to go to Dr. Horrocks. She knew she was going to be properly treated. Did you ever call in a doctor skilled in mental complaints to see your wife,?—l did not want to, 1 was quite good enough myself. If fifteen doctors stood up here and said it was hysteria, I should know it was nonsense.. You relied absolutely on her statement?— knowing her. for over 8| years, and after studying mental diseases, does any doctor dare to tell me— Answer the question, sir. Is that the way you spoke to her?.— It is the way .1 speak to you. Cross-examination continued: He knew Dr. Savage, the mental specialist,' but did not know until December that he was attending his. wife. He first knew that his wife was denying misconduct when he saw the answer to the petition. He was annoyed, because he knew it was absolutely untrue, having regard to her confession 'in the letters. He was aware before he came into court that the case set up by Mrs. Crook was that at the date of the confession she was suffering irom delusions. He thought that she had been misled by her advisers in consulting Dr. Savage. A number of witnesses were then called, and they gave evidence to the effect that Mrs. Crook was a sensible woman at the time the confession was made, that she was not hysterical, and that she perfectly well knew what she was about.

Ml. HOHROCKS IN THE BOX. At the close of petitioner's case, Dr. Peter Horrocks, the co-respondent, entered the witness-box, and was examined by the Hon. 'A. Lyttelton. He deposed that he was in practice in Brook-street. Dr. Crook received hi. medical education at Guy's Hospital, and at one time was in his witness') class. 'With regard to Mrs. Crook, he bad never seen her- before she came to consult tint. '' He wrote to her husband, reporting her condition. She told him at the time that she was very nervous, but she soon got over that. At the time he was ii> large practice, and was seeing a number of women patients every day. He saw Mrs. Crook in the ordinary way in the consulting-room. Is there the slightest truth in the suggestion that during any oi these visits you behaved in any sort of impropriety towards Ler?— Not the slightest. Is it true that you kissed her?— Never. What did she appear to be to you in regard to modesty and decorum?— modest. Continuing, he said that after the birth of the baby lie wrote congratulating the parents, and in reply Di. Crook, by letter, thanked him foi the services he had rendered. One one occasion he drove her in his carriage to the railway station, and bought her a book to read on the way home. Did you ever hear * word at to the accusation until the solicitor's letter of November 24, 18997—That was the first intimation I had. What did you do on receiving it?—l immediately wrote to Sir George Lewis, and asked him* for an interview. From that day to this you have lad nc communication with Dr. Crook? "None whatever. Have you in any way communicated with Mrs. Crook since that, date? --Never. Your services were gratuitous throughout?— Cross-examined by Mr. Inderwiek, Q.C.: On every occasion lie saw Mrs. Crook they were alone together in the consulting-room. With regard to that matte, he generally let the patient decide whether any lady friend would be with them at the time. Ar.- you a single man, or married?— Re-examined: He saw a good many lady patient* alone, and a good (many in the company of other ladies. ■ It fivas very usual to see ladies alone. 1 • Are * you in the habit of seeing a good many of (the wives of your professional brethren professionally?— This is an isloated case in your profession?— No. "■'. .;. Carson, Q.C, proceeded to open the |P base on behalf of the respondent. He said I le pould not deny that the confessions were | of the most serious and incriminating chapter, not only to herself but ajso to the

doctor who attended her with such skill that she was ultimately able to become a mother, which she had long looked forward to. He did not in the least wish to minimise the seriousness of these confessions ; but in such cases, when unsupported by other evidence, they should, above all others in that court, be 'scanned with very great care and consideration, if this were not so any man might be made a co-respondent at any time, and his professional reputation would be at stake. In August, 1899, Mrs..Crook foolishly consulted a lady palmist who to . ld her that her life was broken, and that she would be a widow, but not by death. She also told her 'that she had been unfaithful to her husband, and that she would soon have a baby. That was a horrible tale, and undoubtedly preyed on her mind. , Ultimately it brought.about the confessions, which were false. The case for tin defence was that her mind was noli clear at the time, and that she was then under an aberration of mind. Annie Crook (respondent) was Mrs Ethel Annie Crook (respondent) was then examined. . After her marriage she was not aware actually what was the matter with her till she first saw Dr. Horrocks. After the birth of the child she never felt strong. On any occasion of the visits did Dr Horrocks ever commit adultery with you?-No, never. Or ever take any familiarity or liberty, with yon .'-Never. He knew how to behave himself, and lie was a kind and courteous gentleman. Who mentioned the palmist at Margate?—My husband. That was before he went to see her I knew ho was going because he told me so. When he came back did he tell vou what she told him?— One or two little things. What did lie tell you?-He said she told him he ought to have been a barrister. Anything about married life?— think he did once"; that he was not happy, or something like that, Whom did you get the address of this person from?— From my husband. After that I made up my mind to go and see her. I went in August of last year and saw her alone. What did she do? —She took a hairpin and traced the lines of my hand. While doing that, did she speak to you?— She told me that I had been delicate from a child, which was true. She told me I was not happy, and said I would be a widow by divorce or death-she thought bv divorce. What else?-Sbe told me I had been unfaithful, to my husband, and that before long there would be a serious scandal about my name. Anything else?— She told me I had one child, and said it was a girl. I told her it was a boy. She said I should have another child, a girl, but not by my husband. She said it was my fate, and that I could not get away from it. Did this make an impression on you/—Yes, it preyed on my mind very much. It affected my' rest at night. I could not sleep, and had terrible dreams. I came, to believe that what the palmist had told me was really true. Were you very strong at (lie time?— Not very. As the result of this, did you ultimately tell your husband?-Yes, on November 6, 1899. , Cross-examined by Mr. Inderwick, Q. 0.: As to the first confession, she at the.time believed it to he true, and also the second confession. She had written to say that she wished it was a "wild hallucination" on her part, but that it was " too horribly true" that she was an adulteress. At the time she believed this. When was that?— On November 16, 1399. When did you come to the conclusion that this was all a delusion?— Shortly after I had seen Dr. Savage. Had you then become aware of the fact that there was no evidence against you except you own statement?— cannot tell you. Dr. Savage talked about hallucination, and said that sometimes people made these statements believing that they were true, but afterwards found them untrue. When I saw Dr. Savage I told him the whole of my statement was untrue. Where did you see the palmist at Margate?—At her lodgings, and I was there alone. Did you describe yourself as a married woman? —I had my wedding ring on. In the second confession you said, "We kissed at parting." Is that true in reference to Dr. Horrocks.'— No. ' , In re-examination Mr. Carson read a statement witnest, made last December, in which she set out that she could now see how wrong she was to make such a charge against Dr. Horroeks; that she must have been mad to have made it; further, that she now knew that this was brought about by her mental condition and " the abominable words of the palmist." Dr. George Savage; senior physician at the Bethlehem Hospital, said he firs'. saw Mrs. Crook on December 13 last. He did not know of the confession before that day. The result of his examination of her was that he formed the opinion that she was nervous, slow in answering questions, with a feeble, rather rapid pulse, with wide pupils, a determined aspect—almost sullen. She narrated the facts to him connected with her confessions, and he told her that such confessions from neivous, hysterical women had proved to be without foundation. She said that was not her case, and that what she had slated was true. He told her lie would sooner see her when she was in a better state of health, and that she could not think of anything but this one idea. At the time did vou form any opinion as to what her state was?-I did. I felt quite certain that she was " nervously unstable, hysterical so-called, and that, therefore, her statements must be taken with a considerable amount of doubt. I formed the opinion that she was subject to delusions when she made the confessions. The expressions in Mrs. Crook's letter, " I feel like a hunted animal," indicated her condition— she was suffering under a delusion. Dr. George Hermann gave evidence to the effect that the present statement of respondent wap true, and that her confessions were untrue. This closed the evidence, after which the Hon, Alfred Lyttelton, Q.C., addressed the jury on behalf of the co-respondent. He said that this was a matter of life and death to Dr. HoiTocks, because he could conceive nothing more dreadful than the charge which had been brought against him. It had been said that Di. Horrocks had broken the sacred confidence which existed between a doctor and his patient, and that he had been disloyal to an old friend. If he were guilty of such misconduct be had committed a crime, but it was notorious that errors might arise from these confessions. To accept such confessions would be not only an intolerable injustice to Di. Horroeks, but a menace to the medical profession. Knowing, as the jury did, the whole circumstances, he 'contended that it would be unnatural and inhuman that immoral relations should have taken place between them at the time alleged. Mr. Carson, Q.C., replied on behalf of the respondent. THE VERDICT.

His Lordship, in summing up, said the only question in the case was the guilt of the woman herself, and that depended entirely on her own confession. Against Dr. Horrocks this confession was no evidence. The case in regard to him was that not only was it not against him, but it was in his'favour. There had been no seeking of the lady's society, no intrigue, or letters which might compromise him or her.' In fact, all those things were absent, and it would therefore be the duty of the jury to find that there had been no misconduct on the part of Dr. Horrocks. Were they to believe the evidence against Mrs. Crook? She had made the confession, yet in the box swore it was untrue. Which of the two was true? Was it her statement to her husband or her evidence in the witness-box? They must find whether on the particular matter her mind was sane and sound when she made the confession. The question as to her slate of mind was an extremely difficult one, as it was quite possible that these symptoms might have been referrable to the story being true as well as to its king false. His Lordship described the palmist as a person of extraordinary audacity, and they had to consider what would be the effect of this audacious forecast on the mind of a woman affected its Mrs. Crook was.

The jury retired, and after the luncheon adjournment His Lordship announced thai, he had received a communication from the jury to the effect that there was no chance of their agreeing. His Lordship added that there was a majority, but he did not care to suggest that they should lake the verdict of the majority, Mr. Indenvick said it was too serious a case foi a majority verdict to be taken. The jury shortly after returned into court, and said they found that Dr. Hot-rocks had not been guilty of misconduct, but could not agree with regard to respondent. His Lordship: .Is there no possibility of your agreeing with regard to respondent? The Foreman of the Jury:' I am afraid not, my Lord; we are so nearly divided. The • case against Dr. Horrocks was accordingly dismissed with costs. .Mrs. Crook was also allowed her costs in connection with the trial. "•