A SENSATIONAL CASE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10718, 12 October 1920, Page 7

A SENSATIONAL CASE

CHARGE AGAINST WELLINGTON DOCTORS

AFTERMATH OF STRANBMAN SEDUCTION SGANOAL

HOWARD NATTRASS GIVES EVIDENCE

The application for orders removing the names of Dr Francis Wallace Mackenzie and Dr Henry Arthur Herbert Olaridge from the register oi medical practitioners in New Zealand was further considered yesterday before tho Full Court, -which was comprised of His Honour Sir Bassett Edwards, Mr Justice Chapman, and Mr Justice Herdman. The action was brought under the Medical Practioners Act, 1914, by the New Zealand Medical Board with the consent of n tho Attorney-General. Mr P. S. K. Macassey, of the Crown Law Office, appeared for the Medical Board, Mr C. P. Skerrett, K.C., and Mr Arthur Fair for Dr Mackenzie and Mr H. F. O'Leary for Dr Claridge. Mr T. M. Wilford watched the case on behalf of Howard Nattrass and Edith Kathleen Strangman. MEDICAL BOARD'S ACTION. PROCEEDINGS AT INQUIRY. I Charles Johjn Drake, secretary to the New Zealand Medical Board, said that a meeting-of the Board at Wellington, Dr Olaridge and Dr Maokenzie were present, was neld on October 10th, 1919. The Board was comprised of Dr W. H. PaTkes, of Auckland, Dr J. S. Elliott, of Wellington, Dr Irvine, of Chrktchurch, Dr Ferguson: of Dunedin, and Dr Newman, of Dunedin. Certain charges were preferred against Dr Mackenzie and Dr Clar-I idge, and the evidence of Mr and Mrs! I Strongman and the two accused doctors was taken. I QUESTION OF JURISDICTION. Mr Macassey asked the witness what conclusion the Board came to in respect of the charges, but Mr Skerrett objected, and quoted authorities in support of a contention that the deponent could only give evidence as to a resolution, by which the Board' was required to express its opinion. Mr Justice Herdman: You aro raising the question of jurisdiction, Mr Skerrett: Yea. It is a condition preceeding to the jurisdiction of this court that a resolution should have been passed first .expressing the collective opinion of the Board that these'two doctors had been guilty ol grave impropriety, or infamous (conduct in a professional respect. Mr Justice Chapman: Can't we have the minute, or, hotter still, the full report of the proceedings before the Board?

with Dr Mackenzie on the previous day. Witness told Strangman that they had been unable to find tho house, whereupon Strangman asked him to come up to the house. He did so, and to his surprise found, that Strangman was the same man who had accosted him in the street. Mrs Strangman and Miss Strangman were also present. Ho examined the girl and discovered that she was about three and a-half months pregnant. Strangman offered him £SO to , procure an abortion, and witness rejected the proposal. On the following Wednesday Strangman again came to b'H house and tried to persuade him t-o procure the abortion of the girl, . at the same time stating ,"We could not have' the disgrace on the family. .It has got to he done." "I turned him away," said Dr Claridge. . , "The next connection T had with the case," continued Dr Clarid(?e, "was on Friday, March 7th, when Dr Mackenzie telephoned me and asked me to come to his consulting room, where I found Mrs Strangman and Mies Strangman and Dr Mackenzie. Dr Mackenzie spoke about operating on the girl for adenoids and desired me to examine her to see if she, were in a fit condition to undergo the ordeal. I examined the girl in the presence of her mother, and gave my opinion in the affirmative, and incidentally tried to dissuade Mrs Strangman from any idea of having the girl aborted. About 9 p.m. the flame night, Dr Mackenzie, who is a frequent visitor to my home, came to see me, and about an hour later Howard Nattrass arrived to see.Dr Mackenzie. Nattrass had tried to get Dr Mackenzie at his own home,., ani. missing hini thprje, had located him, at my place, where, be got into communication with Dr Mackenzie per telephone. And so . tho meeting came about. Up to this time, I knew nothing of the intention to tik» the Rirl out of tho Brougham Street Private Hospital, but then Dr Mackenzie stated that they were gomg to get the girl cut and take her to Paromata, pending arrangements being made for her to go to Nelson, pending the birth of her baby, and while Nattrass was away in America;, Dr Mackehsiel isajd taking; such action "because the ! parents were going to take her to some place at Thorndon to have art abortion procured. I am quit© certain," proceeded the witness, "that tho parents were determined to have an illegal operation performed." EPISODE AT HOSPITAL-.

The witness then read the minutes, which included a resolution, as follows : "That the Board approach the Attorney-General in terms of Section 2'2, of the 'Medical Practitioners' Act, 1914,' with a. view of obtaining his permission 'to bring. "the matter before the Supreme Court." . At this stage Mr Skerrett preceded with his objection. "It> is. submitted that the scheme of section 22, he said, "is to have first an adjudication by the Medical Board that in its opinion a practitioner lias been guilty of a specific offence, which means either grave impropriety in a professional respect, or infamous conduct in a professional respect. That, it is submitted, is the foundation to the jurisdiction of.this court preceding the removal of a prima facie offender from the roll. Tho statute is based on the English statute. In England there has to be an adjudication by'the Medical Council of the guilt of a particular practitioner, and that is subject to an appeal to the Supreme Court. Your Honours will see there is.no adjudication of such an act, nor is it specified that the act is .one of professional misconduct or grave impropriety." THE BOARD'S INTENTION.

Dealing with the' hospital episode, Dr Cbridgo said that Nattrass,. Dr Mackenzie and himself proceeded to the hospital in Nattrass's motor-car-, Dr Mackenzie' shortly afterwards, came out and said, "She seems half-asleep. She won't come out for me, go in and see what you can do." Witness accompanied Dr Mackenzie to the door, but seeing a night nurse there, said to Dr. Mackenzie, "I can't go ia; there is a nurse there." "Mackenzie said something about tea and ho and. the nurse went into the kitchen," continued the witness, "and I went into the hospital and said to Edith Strangman, '. Good evening, Miss Strangman. ,#r. N.at;, trass is waiting in.a motor-car outside, for youl' The girl replied that her clothes bad been taken away from her, whereupon I told her there was a fur coat in the car. She got up and left the hospital." > UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION. To Mr Macassey: It would be on •February 222nd or 23rd that Strangman first came to his house. Mr Strangman eaya ho never went before he offered payment for the examination?''Mr Strangman is. ; a liar. Wlliy," I' told ' Chief-Detec.tive Boddam about Strangman—about a man who had offered me £SO and pestered my life out to perform an illegal operation on his daughter. It was at the theatre and we were discussing a Coast c«6e at *he time. ...

Mr Justice Chapman: It seems to have been in the-mind of the Medical Board to send the matter to the Supreme Court and let the court take action. "In England the Medical Council is in a very different position to the Medical Board in New Zealand," said Mr Macassey. "The Medical Council in England must act judicially, whereas the New Zealand Board is not required so to do. It is not even required to call,evidence, but can act on its own knowledge." "Your Honours will see from the resolution that there is. no adjudication, nor is there a determination to have these two gentlemen's names removed from the register," said Mr Sikerrett. Referring to the inquiry before the board Mr Skerrett pointed out that Dr Mackenzie was not in the room when Dr Olaridge gave his evidence, and Dr Claridge was not in the room when Dr Mackenzie gave his evidence. Mr Macassey: Dr Claridge was asked if he would like to remain. Mr Skerrett: But Dr Mackenize was not asked to stay.

I suggest to you that you are inventing this story about Strangman'a first visit to your house?—Then you are making a wrong' 'suggestion. You had satisfied -yourself on the Sunday that the'girl was fit enough- to stand the operation? —Yes. _ _ Then why examine her again xat Dr Mackenzie's surgery ?—Because Dr Mackenzie asked me to. . . Did you see Nattrass there?—No. You knew that she was not being placed in the hospital for the purpose of an operation ?—No; I don't/ knowit now. You mean that?—Certainly. Then lot me read tho evidence you gave before tho Medical Board. Mr Macassey quoted Dr C'laridgo as saying that he believed the girl was sent to Hie hospital for the purpose of getting her away from her parents That is what I now belie* e, but I do not know it. You are asking mo to state what I know, not what I believe. > . Mr Macassey: Let me read the evidence you gave before the Medical Board. You stated there: "I did not know the man at this time, I did not know him." Did he not give his name, Strangman?—lf he did I forgot it. . Did you not go to look for his house P- 4 -! had no idea, of iho namo of the people we wore going to see.. Did Dr Mackenzio not toll you the name of the people?—lf he did it did not convey anything to my mind, You ask the court to believe that when Dr Mackenzie took you to find the house, he did not know the people? —I do not know. Did it not occur to you to ask Dr Mackenzie tho name of the people?— No. If Mackenzie did tell me, it conveyed no more to my mind than Brown or Robinson. I did not attach any importance to it. "OUT OF CURIOSITY." Why were you mixed up with this affair'at all?—It was out of curiosity. Dr Claridge, do you mean to say that) as a medical practitioner? —Yes. You did that after what you say about these old people Soming to you about performing on operation on the girl? You went out of idle curiosity? —-Yes. , Mr Justice Edwards: lou mean that?—That is the only answer I can make. I did it out of idle curiosity. Well, you went to tho hospital out of idle curiosity; if you went out of idle curiosity why did you not/ stayin the car?—'Mackenzie came to tho

Mr Macassey: No. The court conferred for a few minutes, after which Sir Bassett Edwards said that the objection would be noted for consideration later. In the meantime evidence would be taken. This closed the case for the Medical Board, and the defence was opened by Mr O'Leary putting Dr Claridge in the witness-box. . DR CLARIDGE_IN,THE BOX. ALLEGES OVERTURES FROM STR-ANGMAN. Dr Henry Arthur Herbert Claridge said he had been practising in New Zealand for about twenty years, and in Wellington tho l».st four years. He wa« doctor to the United Friendly Society. He had known Dr Mackenzie for about twenty years, and had many tiir.Pd assisted him professionally. In February of last year he was going to hie home in Tinakori road when ho was approached by a middle-aged man who desired to know if witness could direct him to Dr Claridsce's house. "I said 'I think so, considering I am Dr Claridge,' " he continued. "Subsequently I discovered that the man was Mr Strnngman. "We went to my consulting room, where Stranprmnn told me a tale about the seduction of his daughter by her employer and asked me to procure an abortion, for which ho would pav the sum of £SO. I refused." The witness wont on to detail certain incidents up to one day when he was asked by Dr Mackenzie to examine a prirl, whoso name ho did not mention. The followin;?' day ho received a telenhon" mil while ho was in bod, from Mr Stnngmnn, who said he hnd exacted Di Claridjse to visit his house

door and explained the girf was only half-awake. . . .

Mr Justice Chapman: Did it not seem strange that Mackenzie did not come back to the. car?—l understood ho was having tea in the kitchen with the night nurseMr Macassey: Did the girl ever- tell you that her parents intended to have an abortion procured on her? —Yes. When did she tell you that?—At ,mv house on tho 7th of MaioK 'Did you motor her to Island Bay to catch a launch after her return from Waikanae ?—No. i What make is your motor-car? — A Dodge. You had an Overland? —jNo. _ Didn't you buy a motor-car from Nattrass ?—No. I You realise that, you are making «, terrible charge against these old people?—l absolutely do. You swear that? —I adhere to every word I have uttered on oath. Mr Justice Chapman: When did you again see tho girl ? —I think it was after Nattrass and the girl returned [from Nelson. Where did you see her? —At my house. Why should they go to your house? —I don't know. . . Mi- Justice Edwards: Didn't it occur to you, if what you say is true, that all you had to do to save the girl was to say to her parents who wanted you to commit this infamous crime, that if anything happened to the girl you and Mackenzie would go to the police?—lt never occurred to me to do that. Is it not obvious that such a step would have made the girl absolutely saf©?—Now you put it that way, it does, sir. HOWARD NATTRASS'S EVIDENCE. WHERE IS THE GIRL? Howard Nattrass, managing director of the Nattrass and Hams Motor Company, Ltd., said that he sid not know of the girl consulting Dr Mackenzie until after her return from Hastings. On the night prior to the Hastings visit Edith ' Strangman told him that her parents were suspicious of her condition, and that an appointment had been made to have her examined by the ifamily doctor-. She would not go home because of this intention, and after a good deal of argument ho finally agreed to her sug. gestion that he should place a motorcar at, her-- disposal to. take ner through to Hastings. It was after 11 p.m. .-when the girl, acooropamed by a =lady friend; left, for Hastings. Before leaving he asked her to call on Dr Johnson, of Hastings, with a view of definitely ascertaining her condition. He 'phoned Edith Strangman at the Grand Hotel, Hastings, ■ the next night, and as her father and ' mother and a detective were in his oßca at the time, he gave the re: ceiver to her mother, who spoke to her. Witness left for Hnstings, and then went on to Napier, where he saw Dr Johnson, and arranged with him to lookt after her-.,confinement while;-de-ponent-was, abroad, b Upon- his return to Wellington Dr Mackenzie • tele'phoned him and told him that Strangman had seen him and asked him to procuro an abortion on tho girl. Nattrass warned him that if the girl were interfered with lie would inform the police. As a matter of fact he did fo to the detective office on or about 'ebruary 19th. about a week after his return from the Hastings trip, and informed Detective Pidgeon that he knew it was the desire of the parents io hav:ei an;;illcaal; v ed, and that the purpose: of hie visit was to prevent any such happening. Prior to this, Richard Strangman had called on him and asked if it were true his sister was pregnant. Witness did not reply, whereupon Richard said, "If she is that way there is only one thing to do, have her fixed up." Later he saw Mr and Mrs Strangman, to whom ho admitted. the girl's condition, which caused them to say, "Edith would have to he fixed up." A few days after his return from Hastings -he handed: to affirm of solicitors the sum "of £soi for payment to the girl to meet any incidental'expenses. On the morning of March 7th he went to see Dr Mackenzie. Mr Justice Herdman: Whv did you go so early?—l received a letter the previous evening from , Miss Strangman stating that "she anticipated, being removed to a place at Thorndon for the purpose of an illegal operation. In view of the contents of the letter, he' went to Dr Mackenzie and asked his assistance, in trying to-get the girl away from; her parents. "WiHY NOT. GO TO THE POLICE." Mr Justice Edwards: Why didn't you go to the police; you had the letter? I "had already been to the police. Yes; but you now had the letter to back you up ?—I did not think I was getting a fair deal from the po- | lice. Everybody appeared to bo on the side of the parents. Mr Justice Edwards: What police were against you ?—Well —Sub-Inspec-tor Emerson for one. He spent two hours with the girl trying to get her to say that she had been moved on February 4th against her will. "WHERE IS THE GIRL?"i The witness went on to deal with the incidents on'tho evening the girl was removed from the hospital, and Mr Skerrett produced some letters alleged to have been written by tho girl to Nattrass. Ho was proceeding to question tho witness with referenco to. the contents when Sir Bassott Bdi wards asked where the, girl was at 'present? The witness hjesitated -before answering and the judge -apain, put the question: Where is the girl? All- Nattrass: Her© in Wellington. Mr Justice Edwards: What is her address?

Mr Nattrass: Do you insist on an answer? Mr Justice Edwards: Of course! \vp want to know. Mr Nattrass:' Well, I don't want to disclose it unless I am compelled to. I have paid a lot of moneyMr Justico Edwards: We don't cars what j-qti havo paid. Where is she? Mr Justice Ghaproan:,Do tho police know where sho isi? Mr Maws-soy,; No, sir. Mr Justico Edwards: You have got to tell where she is. You know heaaddress? Mr Nattrass: Yes, but I can't be held responsible that she will be at the.address when you want her. If you absolutely insist, I will undertake that she will come to court. Mr Skerrett 'suggested that Mr Nattrass might be given tho opportunity to writ© tho address down and hand it to tho Grown Solicitor. ' Tho court agreed to this, but Mr Nattrass heaitated and said he very strongly objected to divulging'the addT6sß. At this juncture, Mr Wilford got up and said: I havo no,power to intervene as I havo no standing i« the present action and am only present to watoh the proceedings on behalf of Mr Nattrass and Misa Strangman by permission iof 'the court, but I would respectfully suggests that Mr Nattrass bo given power to consult his solicitor.

Mr Justice Chapman: A witness is entitled to that if ho is in danger by Riving evidence. Nattrass is n.ot in danger. Mr Wilford: I don't know. "WE WANT HER PRODUCED.•' Mr Macassey said the _ parents and others had been maintaining a diligent search for Edith Strangman without) result. "Wo want her produced," he added. "It is the only opportunity the parent's will have of getting her away from this man." MY Justico Edwards: If Nattrass wants to consult' his solicitor he has got to swear ha is in danger. UNDERTAKING TO PRODUCE GIRL. Mr Wilford: If necessary I will undertake- to get the girl here to suit the convenience of t ue court. ! Mr Macassey remarked that he did not want to call tiie girl because she might be hostile, whereupon Mr Wilford said he did not expect she would be friendly. Mr Skerrett said it should not concern Mr Macassey whether tiie witness was hostile or not. He was acting for a statutory body. The girl's name had been bandied about and undoubtedly she would resent being paraded before the court. It seemed fr> him that Mr Nattrass had only" given .evidence to save tho girl unnecessary publicity- If tho court thought she should be called the court should direct so. The matter was ended by Mr Justice Edwards remarking: "We don't propose to say any more about it." The examination of Nattrass was then resumed. THE HASTINGS JOURNEY. To Mr O'Leary:. So far as he knew Dr Claridge was not aware prior to the evening of the 7th of March of the arrangement to get the girl out of the hospital. It was only at the la.st moment that Dr Claridge was invited to join the party. Mr Macassey: You say you sent the girl to Hastings?—l did not say that. I did not send her. Well, you supplied her with a car? —Yes. We suggest that you sent her there for the) purpose of having an abortion procured?-—lt is only a suggestion qn your part. Did you send her there, for that purpose?—No, I did not. Wolffe says you told him when you came hack 'from Hastings that if the parents, had not gone to the police you would have had, her fixed upp—ll< ia not true; the construction has been, aJtered. „, , - Mr Justice Herdman: What do you, •mean by "the construction 1 has- been altered" ?—' T told Wolffe that I had seen a doctor at Napier And arranged with him to look after her" right on, until after the confinement. .Mr Macassey: Then you say that Wolffe got into the box and told a, lie?—l say that I did not say what he alleges. Mr Macassey: He told a deliberate lie? Mr Justice Edwards: The witness is not bound to go further. Mr Macassey (to /yritne£S>; .Mr Strangman also told a lief-r-TT did notsay what has been attributed to me. And Mr Strangman?—l can only give tho same answer. At this stage the further hearing of the case was adjourned until today. ■■.'