CHARGE AGAINST DR. REED, OF PENTRIDGE STOCKADE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5314, 6 April 1878, Page 2 (Supplement)

CHARGE AGAINST DR. REED, OF PENTRIDGE STOCKADE.

(From the Melbourne Argus, 27th ult). The board of inquiry appointed to deil with the charge of neglect preferred against Dr. James Reed, of Pentridge Stockade, by the widow of the late Thomas Bails, foreman tailor of that establishment, met in Parliament House yesterday. All the members of the board were present, Mr. A. T. Clark, M.L.A., acting as chairman. Mr. F. L. Smyth was present on behalf of Mrs. Earls, and Dr. Reed was represented by Mr. DGaunson. A number of witnesses were examined, and from their evidence the board gathered that the late Thomas Earls was employed as master tailor in the Pentridge Stockade for nearly thirteen years, but iu consequence of a deep-rooted disorder he was compelled to retire temporarily from service in July of last year. He obtained four weeks’ leave, and a month subsequently the resident medical officer. Dr. Reed, who had charge of the warders and officials of the Penal department, reported that, the man was permanently incapacitated from duty, owing to old age and debility induced by the inroads of disorder.""'TTp to the 17th or 18th or July Dr. Reed had attended Earls and prescribed for him, a deduction of 2s. per day being made from his salary in accordance with the rule made for the warders who happen to fall sick while on active service. From about the 21st of July to the 13th of August Dr. Reed did not attend the patient. On the latter date he visited him for the purpose of making an official report on the case, in accordance with instructions from the superintendent; but all the evidence went to show that Dr. Reed’s professional attendance ceased on the 21st Jidv—a fact admitted by Dr. Reed himself. The explanation offered by Dr. Reed was to the effect that the feel ng existing between himself and the Earls family had not been very cordial for some years past. He considered that his services were not required, and he appeared to have made up his mind that he would not again attend Earls until specially sent for. In consequence of his non-attendance, however, Mrs. Earis engaged Dr. Crooke, who took her husband’s case in hand, and attended him for two or three months. Mrs. Earls in her evidence stated that only one message—and that an indirect one—bad been sent to Dr, Reed, who, on the other hand, asserted that he had not been made aware that his presence was wanted from the delivery of the message. Dr. Reed was of the opinion that another medical man had been called in, and professional delicacy prevented him from obtruding himself upon a patient under the circumstances. On being closely examined on this point, Dr. Reed said that he had omitted to attend Earls from inattention, and then added that he had been influenced by the belief that another doctor was attending the patient. The inquiry, which lasted five hours, was thoroughly exhaustive, the proceedings being somewhat protracted owing to the presence of counsel on both sides. Mr. Dixon, during the examination of a witness, expressed his strong disapprobation of the admission of professional men to the sittings of boards of inquiry, and signified his intention of opposing th'eir appearance in future, as they simply converted the investigations into police court cases, and took up a large amount of valuable time in raising legal quibbles quite beyond the questions at issue. The board will meet to-morrow for the adoption of the report.