EXTRAORDINARY ANGLO-COLONIAL TRIAL.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1264, 21 May 1896, Page 10

EXTRAORDINARY ANGLO-COLONIAL TRIAL.

THE KITSON SCANDAL. From Our Special Correspondent. London, March 27. The Kitson family esclandre which has been occupying the Courts this week excites keenest interest in Anglo-Colonial circles as well as in Leeds and London society. Mr and Mrs Arthur Kitson were married in Australia, lived in Sydney several years, and have many friends there. The formor only recently returned Home from New South Wales. The defendant, Dr Playfair, married Arthur Kitson’s sister, and is one of the greatest obstetric physicians in London. Sir James Kitson is the head of tho great Leeds firm of locomotive and mechanical engineers, was made a baronet in 188(3, and has practically tho wealth of Midas at command. That he was unable to stop the washing of this very dirty linen in public would seem, however, to argue him not specially beloved or respected by his family. The story of the case, denuded of unnecessary detail, runs thus : —Arthur Kitson, who would appear to have been on indifferent terms with his two wealthy elder brothers, went out to Australia as agent for the firm. He there met his wife, and they were married in August, 1881. Her firwt child (the lady deposed in evidence) was born on the 2nd of Juno, 1882, and she had considerable trouble in connection therewith. Her second child was born on the 11th of May, 1884, and afterwards she wa3 in very poor health. She was in the hands of various medical men, and between tho birth of her second child and leaving Australia she had several miscarriages. Witness left Australia on the 26th October, 1892. She had one miscarriage, she thought, without any medical assistance. Her husband left Australia about a week or so before she did —about tho end of September. During tho voyage Homo from Australia her stato of health was very low. She arrived in England on the 2nd December, 1892. She was taken to rooms provided for her by one of her husband’s family at Margaret street, Cavendish square. Afterwards she went to Bournemouth at tho suggestion of her husband’s family and Dr Playfair, amongst others. Sir James Kitson and his brother made her an allowance of <£soo a year for herself and her children, and the family generally were kind and considerate. Things went well till January, 1894, when she became very ill. Dr Williams, tho medical man attending her, then suggested her relative, Dr Playfair, should bo called in. Witness went on to say that Dr Playfair visited and examined her in the presence of Dr Williams, and expressed much the same opinion as that gentleman. He thought it was an aggravated case of influenza, and that she was in a very low stato. He recommonded that sho should be sent to a Homo to be nursed. W hen Dr Williams wont out of the room Dr Playfairadded ho was very sorry to seo her in such alow state,and asked her what was worrying her. Witness replied she was bothered about her husband. Ho asked why, and sho said he was in a dreadful stato through not getting his money, and perhaps starving. Dr Playfair answered, “ Let him, he allowed you to starve; it was the best thing that could happen." She cried, “ Oh, doctor, I can’t do that; if James would only send his money it would be all right. If ho does not get it he will blow his brains out." Dr Playfair urged her to try and get well, and take care of herself for tho sako of her children. Dr Williams then came in. She did not see Dr Playfair again until the day of the operation—the 22nd of February. Dr Playfair said it would be necessary to examine her underchloroform, and tho anaesthetic was administered. She lost consciousness for a time, but on recovering heard a part of tho conversation between Dr Playfair- and Dr Williams. Dr Playfair said, “ I don’t know what else it can be; I know very little about her; sho may have been playing ‘hanky-panky.’” Dr Williams said, “I don’t think it can bo anything like that; she has submitted to every examination, and been perfectly candid.” Sho then struggled up and said, “ Oh, Dr Playfair, for God’s sake let me go now if you think there is anything wrong.” He then pattod her and said, “ There, there my dear, it’s

all right; wo think it is a cancerous growth.” Ho also said, “Give her some more.” Dr Williams then dabbed the handkerchief, or whatever it wan, in her face again, and she again lost consciousness, and remained in that state for a long period. She regained consciousness with dilliculty when Dr l'lay fair had gone. She continued very ill, and suffered from pain and exhaustion, being besides mentally distressed by what she heard. A correspondence of a very singular descript- ion followed between doctor mid patient. The former, forgetting his character as confidential physician, and remembering the lady was only his connection by marriage, warned her that unless she could account for her condition by showing that her husband had been in England'within three months he must expose her to his wife and Sir James Kitson. She replied first imploring the doctor to ho more charitable in his judgment and latterly in despairing hysteria agreeing to say anything if he would only be silent. Dr Playfair, however, was adamant. Mrs Playfair and Sir James Kitson were enlightened as to the supposed character of their poor relation and tho latter withdrew his allowance of £SOO a year. Instead ho provided liberal “ copybook headings ” on tho heinous nature of Mrs Arthur’s offence. The poor lady did not ho we vd? collapse under these charitable imputations on tho part of her relatives. On tho contrary she wrote to her husband full of all that. bud occurred.

| ings for slander on her belialf against the Playfairs. SCENE IN COURT. The scene in Court during poor Mrs Kitson’s examination and cross-examination was painful in the extreme. Her voice, broken with agitation, rose frequently 1 to a shrill, strained and agonised cry. Each word was uttered separately, was only spoken with great difficulty and was followed with a long and painful pause as she strove to go on. Every minute we expected to see the poor persecuted woman sink fainting to the floor. But some desperate resolution from within or power from above enabled her, though often almost inaudible, to struggle on. If she j were guilty twenty times over,” said a i great doctor in Court during Bir 1 rank Lockwood’s cross-examination, “ this would yet be grossest inhumanity. Believing her (as 1 do) innocent, t cannot characterise such torture in language fit tor publication.” MR ARTHUR KITSON.

Mr Arthur Kitson, tho plaintiff’s husband, deposed that as his wife was “ never out of the doctor’s hands” in Sydney, lie sent her and his two children Home. At Port Darwin in 1894, or eighteen months later, witness heard of the charge brought against her by the Playfairs. He came Homo at once. His wife communicated to him all that had occurred and placed all tho correspondence in his hands unreservedly. She was very weak, and she appeared to him to bo rather hysterical. He made full enquiries at places where she had been living. Mr Justice Hawkins intimated that this kind of evidence could not be gone on with, because he should not allow Dr Playfair to do anything to prove that what had been said was true, because there had been no justification pleaded. Cross-examined : Did you make a representation that you had paid a surreptitious visit to England ?—I did not. I allowed it to bo so believed. Witness continued that ho did nothing to remove this impression because it struck him that the family wished to believe it, and it struck him also that matters might be smoothed over if he allowed that impression to remain. Ho wrote: “Mow is it that it could not bo easily seen that her reticence about my movements is a very grave mistake that sho has to acknowledge, but it was to prevent any unpleasantness between mo and my family?” Did that not mean that your wife had been reticent as to your return to tnis country?—lt did not. Then what did it mean? —I think it meant exactly what it said. Ilis wife had, ho added, informed him that sho would not report his movements in Australia, lie did not by that letter intend to represent that he had been homo to this country, and that his wife was reticent as to that fact.

Did you receive letters from Sir James Kitson and from Dr Playfair withdrawing the accusation against your wife? —\ cs, in a fashion; but tho withdrawal was later withdrawn.

TIIE DEFENCE. Sir James Kitson, it was generally gathered when the defence opened, could have stopped tho caso ere it came into Court by withdrawing tho imputation on his sister-in-law and agreeing to continue tho allowance her misconduct was said to have forfeited. It seemed, however, that though, like the Playfairs, the baronet did not persist in the charge of unchastity, ho would not make just amends. Dr Playfair, a white-haired elderly gentleman comfortably wrapped in professional composure, rendered this puzzling case more puzzling than ever. Ho said ho examined Mrs Kitson with Dr Williams under chloroform and found her suffering from a recent miscarriage. Tho whole story told by tho lady of what occurred on that occasion was untrue. She had only one doso of the anaesthetic, not two. Ho never said to Dr Williams “ she may have been playing hanky-panky,” nor did his colleague reply as alleged. Ho also denied that he patted her and said that they thought that it was a cancerous growth. The result ot the examination was that ho came to tho conclusion that there had been a miscarriage, and that it had keen a recent occurrence. He accepted her statement, that her husband had been in England, as true, and was rejoiced at it, and upon that foundation he wrote his letter to the plaintiff. Jn airiving at his conclusion lie burned hi« opinion honestly and to the ben I "t .bin skill. In cross-examination, Dr Playfair, with great iviuctaiice, indeed only answering under compulsion, admitted ho still believed Mrs Kitson guilty of adultery. Then, said counsel, why had you not the courage and the manliness t" put a plea to that effect upon the record ?•--Because J placed inv ease in the hands of eminent counsel, and I was suliiciently wise to act up to their advice. And you still tell th o j 1 1 t'.V tha t haling heard this lady and her husband aiuU)r Stephens, yon adhere to the opinion toat this lady is guilty ?—I do not tell the jury that at all. i am directed to answer the

question. _ You still say, notwithstanding this lady s oath, notwithstanding her husband’s evidence, and notwithstanding the professional opinion of Dr Spencer, that she is guilty of adultery?—! am reluctantly obliged to say that I do. t Did you form an opinion adverse to Los lady’s honour solely upon mod.cal considerations, and reject all moral considerations, in arriving at that conclusion ? “When a woman has had a miscarriage and her statement is that she has had none, is that of no importance ? Do you reject all moral considerations i —Certainly in the face of what I saw 1 regret tho fact that she called upon a member of her own family to attend her. It did not strike mo that sho would have

Did it not strike you as important that she should be allowed to communicate with her husband ?-—Certainly not, as her husband had not seen her for 18 months. Then you agree that you were so absolutely certain that no amount ot evidence would satisfy you to the contrary ?—lf 1 had had any doubt at all it would. But for what I saw I should not have ventured to make this accusation. Would any amount of evidence satisfy con that you might possibly be mistaken in the inference that you drew ? —No. ’I here was no doubt in my mind about it. You have heard Dr Spencer?—llis evidence amounts to nothing. Jlow many medical opinions corroborating his would you require to show the possibility that you might have made a mistake ?—None whatever, because no person could have seen the matter in question under the circumstances which I saw it. Why did you not give her an interview —Because it was a very distressing matter, and t did not want to discuss it.

CONFLICT OF MEDICAL EVIDENCE. Dr Murzio Williams, who assisted Dr Playfair in tho operation on Mrs Kitson,

gave ail account of the affair differing from Dr Playfair’s. According to him, Dr Playfair, on discovering Airs Kitson’s condition, observed, “This is terrible,” and later, “ I didn’t know her hefoic she married Arthur Kitson.” Hu did not recollect Dr Playfair saying, “ I know very little about her: she may have been playing hanky-panky.” "Witness did not sav, “ I don’t think it can bo anything like that.” Nor did he say, “She'has submitted to every examination and been perfectly candid.” Did the lady say, “ Oh, Dr Playfair, for God’s sake let mo go now if you think there is anything wrong !”—No.

Did Dr Playfair pat the lady to comfort her, and say, “There, there, dear, it is all right ; it is only a cancerous growth ? —Dr Pla> fair did not.

Mr Justice Hawkins: Did you?—No. Are you sure? —1 said, “ The operation is not quite finished —go on breathing.” Did you say anything about a cancerous

growth ? —No ; she said, “ W hat is this you accuse me of?” I said, “ 1 do not accuse you of anything; tho operation is not quite finished —go on breathing.” Mr Mathews: Was anything said about a cancerous growth? —No. In cross-examination, Dr Williams fared badly, as it was shown t hat he refused to supply Mrs Kitson’s solicitors with a statement, though ho gave one to Dr Playfair. The young medical man, :n short, though admittedly dubious of his patient’s guilt, considered it safer for him professionally to shunt tho poor lady and stick by the eminent specialist. Sir John Williams, Sir W. Broadbent and a number of famous doctors were then called to show that may arise when a medical man is justified in breaking the seal of confidence. None of them, however, attempted to pretend that Dr Playfair was right in confiding Mrs Kitson’s secret to Sir James.

L A T E 11. A WARNING TO THE MEDICAL PROFESSION. London, April 7. “Another record beaten by Australia,” said the Junior Bar as the talked over the Kitson verdict last Friday afternoon. But to speak the truth, the heroine of tho Great Slander Case is not Australian horn. We are told she went out to the colonies as a girl with her parents and lived in various places some years before sho met Arthur Kitson in Sydney. Nobody, however, really knows much, for the parties chiefly concerned are reticent regarding their Antipodean experiences. The £12,000 awarded Mrs Kitson is just .£7OOO more than she asked for. The jury, of course, desired to give her cn permanence the AM-00 a year Dr Playfair’s malice had deprived her of. That the higher Courts will somewhat reduce these damages seems certain, but that won’t hurt Mrs Kitson. The jury have effectually cleared her character. The £5009 given my friend, Air C. T. Gatty (it was reduced to .£3OOO on appeal) up to now for mod the tip-top damages in a slander case. Mis Kitson’s verdict leaves his far behind. It was no doubt tho inner history of this peculiar affair that roused the jury to award .such exemplary punishment to | >|- I‘laviair. Ali.s Arthur Kitson and her chihlreM came 1" Engloi i friendless and penniless. 'I he family didn’t want her. She belonged to the unsatisfactory younger hro'her. She was a chronic invalid. Her advi nt was tiresome. Of c air.-e, Sii Janes couldn't stop her allowance or anything ot that, kind. And the cnveiinnees necessitated shewing in r some civility. But they must get the woman back to An 'lndia as soon as pcs.-ilile. So Sir James Kitson bade his si.'Jei -in la w kindly wele, cue and—reduced lmr allowance from .£SOO to £IOO a year. Dr Playfair's discovery, or rather, :->uj>-po.-.ed discovery,supplied the Kitson family and especially Sir James with a long felt want. They had, of course, al ways known “ that Mis Arthur ” was “no belter than she ought to he,” and now facts made it certain. Back the wretched woman must go to Australia, or not a penny more would Sir James allow her. But in this they reckoned without Mrs Arthur. She is a mild, meek little lady, besides being terhliu let her lieb relations do as they would with her. Now, however, sho struck and — starved.

The family had no expectation of reprisals, and tho unexpected arrival of Arthur Kitson, from Sydney, in an extremely pugnacious mood, did not alarm them. Even when the slander case was initiated Dr Playfair failed to realise he was in a tight place. The family could have stopped the case by apologising,

' .Judge’s references to Sir James Kitson were touched with sly satire, 'i he wealthy man who, to save £4OO a year, would allow such a fine assortment of family dirty linen to bo washed in public must be aciuio indeed. THE MEDICAL ASPECT. Dr Playfair’s attitude in the witness-box helped Airs Kitson _ His assumption of infallibility irritated ihoLuuit beyond measure, and when, in defiance of his plea, ho repealed lus belief in Mrs Kitsoii’s immorality, 1 suspect he added a good round sum to the damages. I his unscientific dogmatism, so often found in scientific men, is as dangerous as any political or theological prejudice. That Dr Playfair honestly thought what he said of Mrs‘Kit son 1 amcerlain. That he used during the examination the flippant and disgusting language attributed to him one prefers not to believe. But ho is not infallible, ami Mr Justice llawkins_ pointed out with great shrewdness that it lie had even thought himself so he would not have sought confirmation from an analyst. This was one of the many points in a masterly summing up which created great effect, ‘ Aledieally, I'm told, Airs Kit soil’s case, tnough rare, is not unique. Air Arthur Kitson states that lie has tho most remarkable confirmation of the plaintiff’s theory as to the reason ot the extraordinary condition which misled Dr Playfair. A surgeon in Cornwall has written him mentioning just such a case which had happened within his knowledge, giving tho names of tho medical men who attended the case, and all details. The result was disastrous to tho health of tho patient in that case. MEDICAL HONOUR.

The importance to the general public of the decision of tho jury cannot, be overrated. One hopes there are not many doctors who would have taken the view of their professional responsibilities adopted I ,v Dr Playfair, and such as there are will probably now sue fit to revise their ideas. Mr Justice Hawkins has laid down, and the jury have affirmed, that medical confidences are under seal of confession, and that the doctor who betrays his patient under any circumstances whatever shall be punished and socially excommunicated. It may conceivably happen that, to save life or avert a crime, a doctor may find himself forced to reveal a secret of the consultingroom, but even then lie must be aide to show convincingly there was no other way of preventing tho catastrophe. Almost always, of course, there is another way. Dr Playfair’s plea that he had to confide in his wife in order to prevent her and her children becoming contaminated by association with Airs Kitson Justice Hawkins tore to pieces. There were, as lie said, fifty methods of achieving the end without breach of confidence. Even Sir John Williams and Sir William Broadbent, anxious as they were to back up Dr Playfair, hadn’t a word to say in defence of his betrayal of Airs Kitson to Sir James. Probably he cannot justify that to himself, obstinate as lie is.

The press all over the country warns the medical profession that, as tho Times says, “ if a medical man reveals a professionally-o-ained secret, he does so at his peril.” “An exceptional confidence (the leading journal ogles on) is reposed in him. His consultingroom is in the nature of a confessional,and the disclosures made in it arc hardly less sacred than those made to the confessor priest. Occasionally, in the interest, of justice, he may feel hound to break silence and to answer questions put to him in a Court of law, hut he must himself ho judgo as to this, and lie will choose rather to offend by silence than to expose himself to the shadow of a charge of indiscreet and uncalled-for babbling. On no other terms can ho claim the full confidence which he now constantly enjoys.” ATTITUDE OF THE PROFESSION. Despite tho attitude of the half a dozen f <xeat doctors who went into the witnessbox to help Dr Piaylair, the profession as a whole are dead against him,’and the Lancet and British Medical Journal will, it is anticipated, speak out on the subject with no uncertain voice. A leading physician writing with strict moderation in tho Westminster Gazette says:—“Dr Play fair committed an error in professional custom in disclosing anything about his patient. The circumstances did not warrant him in making any statement to a third person re.-peelmg the opinion lie may have been led to term concerning her. Assuming that his sole object was to ii.stiaei.-c his patient, s:> far as his own family were concerned, there were other limans to which ne could nave ro o.lrdin order to attain this end, without divulging anything that he may ham !emit about, her during the course of his profe.v-.iutial attendance. Herein comes the question ot medical ethics. V, hat is the etiquette upon such a point."' '1 ne ruling as J.u>; down in a wi 11-knowii work ■ as ‘ Thu obligation of secrecy extern..; ncy nei the period of pi’nle-sioua! s’-r' i’ •' •• ‘‘ of the privacies of per.-.i a! ami ')■ me-We life, no infirmity of di qio.ita nor not <*i character, observed dining proh.s..-ioui<i attendance, should ever lie dl.-cloS'd by the medical adviser nairas im[)•'■)..!; l required. The tome and m.c'-si'/ oi t nt> obligation are indeed so gieut ti.at professional men have under w j turn cncumrstances been protected in their observance of secrecy by courts of justice.’ Here, ile n, is ihe ruling upon I :■■■ .. u.q et. laid and it. is right that tho public should know that such a ruling exists.”