DOCTORS' CONDUCT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVII, Issue 17597, 9 October 1920, Page 7

DOCTORS' CONDUCT.

CHARGE OF IMPROPRIETY.

ABDUCTION OF A GIRL.

AN ALLEGED -CONSPIRACY. UNUSUAL- WELLINGTON CASE. [by telegraph.—tbess association.] WELLINGTON, Friday, The Full Court to-day was engaged in hearing a rather .unusual case in the shape of two motions by the' Crown, representing the Medical Board, under the Medical Practitioners Act, for orders removing Drs. T. W. MacKenzie and H. A. H. Claridge from the register of the medical practitioners in New Zealand, on the ( grounds that they had committed grave impropriety in a professional respect. • ' < - -

In Dr. MacKenzie's case the complaint is "that he conspired with Howard Nattrass to take Edith Kathleen Strangman, being then eighteen years and three months of age, and a patient under his care, out of the custody of her parent*-., and deliver her over to Nattrass, and. that he did, in pursuance of such design, by deception, induce her mother to take her to Nurse' Vickers' private hospital in Brougham Street, and that late at night on March 7. 1919, with the aid of Henry Arthur. Herbert Claridge, MacKenzie took the girl from the hospital without the knowledge or consent of her parent* or the matron of the hospital, and delivered her to Nattrass.".

The case against Dr. Claridge is in similar -terms.- except that it is alleged he was in consultation with, Dr. Mackenzie concerning the girl, that he conspired with Nattrass to take her out of the custody of her parents, and assisted MacKenzie to deliver her over to Nattrass.

Discussion took place on an application by Mr Skerrett, K.C. (for MacKenzie). that the proceedings be not in open court, as the details of the physical examination of the young girl would necessarily form part of the evidence. Mr. Justice Edwards said: "Publicity of proceedings is one of the great protective/ against the commission of offences." Mr. Skerrett said he only made the application in the interests of the girl ♦ u A Justice ' Edwards announced that the Court was of opinion that the public was too deeply interested in the matter roSed * de arture from the ordinary

The Case for the Crows. Mr. Maoassey (Crown Solicitor) said the proceedings arose out of a case heard sometime back, dealing with an attempt by Nattrass to take by force possession of a girl out of her parents' control. On the advice of the 'doctors the girl was Pent by her parents to a private hospital '■ to undergo an operation for adenoids. One evening the doctors and Nattrass removed the girl from the hospital. MacKenzie entered the hospital first, the others remaining outside. He asked the night nurse for writing paper to write a prescription, and then spoke to the girl, who put on a dressing gown, and left the hospital. They drove away in Nattrass' car to Claridge's house, MacKenzie remaining at the hospital. When the matron came in, MacKenzie told her the girl had escaped. He then went to her parents' house, and ' informed them that their daughter had gone. The mother wished to ring up the police, but Dr. MacKenzie said: "Leave her alone, she is over age." He then ran away, .pursued by another daughter. ' Subsequently the father saw the girl, Nattrass, and MacKenzie coming out of the theatre. The .father knocked^ 'Nattrass- down, and "a friend knocked MacKenzie, down. The girl was taken home. That' was in April, 1919. She remained at home until June. One evening she was allowed to go to church, and her parents had not seen ber since then. The parents took civil proceedings against Nattrass, and the case was compromised.

"Absolutely raise."

.Mr. Macassey made the following submissions : Nattrass desired to have abortion procured "when he sent the girl to MacKenzie, and the girl was sent to Napier for that purpose, but when the father went to the police Nattrass brought her back. MacKenzie arranged with Claridge and Nattrass to get the girl out of the control of her parents, and hand her to Nattrass. by deceiving her parents into the belief that a nasal operation was absolutely necessary. They deceived the matron of the hospital by telling her the girl was coming in for an adenoids operation. Counsel understood MacKenzie's defence would be that the parents intended and insisted on abortion being procured. He declared these statements were absolutely false. The Crown Prosecutor . added that the proceedings were taken under section 22 of the Medical Practitioners Act which provided that if anv registered medical practitioner was guilty of grave impropriety or infamous conduct, or was convicted of an indictable offence, he should be struck off the roll.

The Mother Gives Evidence. Emma Amelia Strangman, mother of the girl, said she had no idea her daughter was attended by Dr. MacKenzie until her daughter sent for him one day. He informed witness that the girl was suffering from a nasal trouble, and ordered her to Brougham Stivet Hospita' for an operation. She did not come home one night, and next day her parents discovered that she had gone to Hastings, whence she returned eight days later. Witness did not suspect the girl's condition, but found out later from Nattrass. Dr. MacKenzie asked that Dr. Claridge should examine the girl, which the latter did in her mother's presence, to see if she was fit for an operation. Dr. MacKenzie told witness to take her daughter to the hospital that night, which she did. Dr. MacKenzie about midnight told witness that her daughter had escaped from the hospital. Witness* husband went for the police. Witness did not see her for more than a week. She disappeared again next day for three weeks,' and some weeks later went to Christchurch. She had not been home since. Witness denied that she or her husband asked a doctor to perform an operation to procure abortion. Witness never found any letters written by' Nattrass to her daughter, but some (produced) were found under her mattress at the hospital and handed to witness* sol'citor. Mr. Skerrett said the letters showed that Nattrass had never desired an operation, and was a'wavs against it. Isabel Christer Vickers, malron of the Brougham Street Private Hospital, said Miss Strangman was sent to her hospital as a nasal case. She first !ie*rd of the girl's escape at midnight, and ask-d that j the parents be informed. She did rot J accept patients from Claridge. ' j Encounter Outside the Theatre.

! William Strangman, father of the girl, I gave evidence that on the night of the ' g'rl's disappearance from the hospital, when MacKenzie came to his house, Mrs. Strangman suggested telephoning to the police,, but MacKenzie ridiculed the idea. He made an excuse and ran away down the street. ■ On one occasion, after his daughter's disappearance, he met Nattrass, MacKenzie, and his daughter coming out of the theatre. He spoke" to his daughter, but MacKenzie tried. to take her away. Witness slapned him on the face, and be; disapDeared in the crowd. Witness ■ took! his daughter home. Witness's brother was also present. He struck Nattrass. The statement that.witness made a proposal that an operation for abortion should be performed by Claridge, witness declared, was an absolute lie.

John William Wolfe gave evidence as to the good qualities of Mrs. Strangman as a mother, and who MacKenzie had stated was " quite iricapable." At Edith Strangman's request, he asked Nattrass to inform her parents* as to her condition. - The Court adjourned until Monday.