DECISION RESERVED

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10719, 13 October 1920, Page 7

DECISION RESERVED

Finality in the taking of evidence and tho hearing of addresses by counsel in respect of the application for orders removing the names of Dr Francis Wallace Mackenzie and Dr Henry Arthur Herbert Claridge from tho register of medical practitioners in Now Zealand was reached yesterday, when the Full Court, -which was comprised of His Honour Sir Bassett Edwards, Mr Justice Chapman, and Mr Justice Herdman, reserved its decision. The action was brought under the Medical Practitioners Act. 1914, by the Now Zealand Medical Board, with the consent of the Attorney-General.

Mr P. S. It. Macaesey, of the Ctown , Law Office, appeared for the Medical Board; Mr C. P. Skerrett, K.C. and Mr Arthur Fair for Dr Mackenzie; and M* H. P. O'Lea-v for Dr Claridge. Mr T. M. "Watford watched the case on behalf of Howard Nattrass and Edith Kathleen Strangman. Dr Mackenzie is 68 years of 'agt, and Dr Claridge 52 years of age. DR MACKENZIE'S VERSION. ■SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS MADE. Dr Francis Wallace Mackenzie, Master of Surgery, Bachelor of Medicine, University of Edinburgh, 18S5, said he had been practising in "Wellington ae an eye, ear, and throat specialist since 1887. He -was not a member of tho British Medical Association, having voluntarily seceded from that body many years ago, when he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine. On February 26th of fast year, Miss Edith Stiangroaa, whom he had not known previously, canie~fo see him, and complained of deafness, which ho ascertained hy examination was caused Iby septic tonsils and adenoids. He j also discovered indications of pregnancy. Acting on his suggestion, the girl returned with her mother tho next day, and witness informed Mrs Strangman of tho result of his examination of the girl. Tho mother ngreed I to an operation for the nasal tremble, and in effect asked him if anything coiild be done to relieve her daughter of the other condition. He told "her that it would be the worst thing in the world to interfere with the natural course of things, as it might ruin the girl's health for all time. Mi- Strangman came to see him the same night. St-rangman said he was a poor man, but he -would pay £SO for an operation. Witness spent a good long while with him trying to dissuade him from any such intention, but. without making any great imprefuion, as Strangman was concerned with the disgraco consequent upon the birth of a child under tho circumstances. Dr Mackenzie said he then pointed out that an operation would result in the murder of Strangman's grandchild, and possibly of his daughter. However, hefelt he had not made headway with Strangman up te the time the latter loft the surgery. '•I WILL GO TO THE POLICE." "Immediately "after the departure of Strangman," continued the witness. ''l telephoned Nat-trass, an acquaintance of mine, and told him of the overtures . that had been made to me. Nattrass answered me very quickly, saying, 'lf I hear of anybody interfering with the girl I will go to the police.' I believe Strangman came to see me almost every day after that, pressing me to perform the improper-operation, and I spent much time with him trying to alter his frame of mind. Later, Nattrass came to me and told me all about the trouble. He said he had got the girl into trouble, but he was going to stand by her through everything. Nattrass warned mo not to have anything to do with Strangman's schemes."

Counsel went" on to question tho wit- : ness about certain inten iews on specific dates, but Dr Mackenzie said he could not remember dates with any degree of accuracy, as he had .only recently recovered from the effects of an attack of typhoid fever and a major operation. Speaking- of March 7th, the date on which the girl was taken from the Brougham street Private Hospital, he said that Nattrass came to see him early in the morning and brought a letter from Edith Strangman which contained an appeal to rescue her from an impending operation find als.o asking Nattrass to see witness about the matter. "THE POLICE WON'T DO ANYTHING."

"Nattrass said, 'What about going to the police?" went on Doctor Mackenzie, "but I said 'They won't do any- ! thing. This sort of thing is going- on all the time in Wellington. Children are being murdered every day. The people think it the proper .thing.' I then suggested to Nattrass that the girl should be placed in a hospital where she would bo safe from any risk of improper interference and where th 6 adenoid operation could be performed. ' Even ail this time I had every intention of carrying- out the adenoid operation. . . . Nattrass went away and I got into touch with Mrs Strangman and brought about a meeting at my surgery. Nattrass came first, and I sent him to tho smoking-room, where he remained while Mrs and Miss}

THE MACKENZIE - CLARIDGE AFFAIR

FINAL STAGES OF SENSATIONAL CASE

"Why was sho driven there?—Bej. caaso she had ro clothes.

.Mr Justice Chapman: You know whera it v/as intended the car should bo driven? —Yes. I developed the while scheme.

Before leaving the witness-box, Dr Mackenzie said ho wanted to inform the court that Dr Claridgo only came into tho matter in an accidental sort of way. "I developed the whole scheme," lie repeated, "and' Edith Strongman would not havo been taken to Dr Claridge'a house if it had not been that she had no clothes." "He said he dropped in to seo tho fun," said Mr Justico Herdman. "That was his way of putting it," replied the witness.

Strangman and Dr Claridge and myself had a consultation and the girl was examined. These derails concluded, I sent Mrs Strangman out of the room and during her absence questioned Edith about the meaning of her letter to Nattrass. She said she was a prisoner, being confined to a room and not allowed to communicate with anyone other than a girl visitor; also, that she was going to be taken away to have an procured. Miss Strangman and her mother went off, and I saw' Nattrass and told him wo would have to get Edith away and someone to look after her. He said: 'I know someone at Nelson, who will look after her if wo can get her there, but there is sure to .bo some trouble as tho parents will put the police on to me. We will have to. hide her until the boat goes.' I knew an old lady who lived part of her time at Paremata, so 1 said to Nattrass, 'I believe that. old lady look after her.' Nattrass fell in with my suggestion, and I arranged to got the girl into the hospital and also with the old lady to accommodate Edith Strangman untiil she could got away to Nelson." Dr Mackenzie went on to deal with the discussion at Dr Claridge's house on March 7th, and said they looked up a. book en law to rscertani if they were safe in going on with the scheme. , "What was the book"? queried Mr Skerrett. "The Justices of the Peace Act," replied Dr Mackenzie. "I am responsible for the whole, scheme," he added. . .-■■-,.

"They might have got a more ingenious inventor. That's all I can, say." retorted counsel. "There was no reason for Dr Claridge accompanying us to the hospi tal," continued -the witness. "He just came." Mr Justice Edwards: Who asked Dj Claridge to go ?—Nattrass invited him and he came. It was all arrang. ed that I should "O. Claridge was reallv an outsider.

After referring to various incidents at the hospital and the discovery hy Nurse Tickers that Edith Strangman had disappeared, Dr Mackenzie said: "I said to Nurse Tickers 'She must he walking -in her sleep. She was asleep when I saw her a few minutes ago.' I then went outside to look for hrr." Mr Justice Chapman: You know where she had cone? "I WANTED TIME."

Yes, but I wanted time. I wanted her to get away. At Nurse Vickcrs's request-'! visited Strangman's house and told them of tho absence from the hospital of their daughter. They were greatly perturbed and talked of going to the police, whereupon I said: ''She might have waited m her sleep or gone away in a motor-car, or anything." Mr Justice Chanman: Did you tell them the girl had been abducted?— No.

Mr Skerrett: When did you next see Nattrass ?—'After his return from Nelson; I accompanied Edith Strangman and Nattrass to a picture entertainment. Why did you go?—Nattrass asked me.

That is a poor reason?—Oh, no. A vcrv good reason. Would it not have been JbcJter for vou not to have mixed voursclf \\r> in his nutter? —Yes: if I had known as much os 1 know now. UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION. Mr Macassey cross-examined witnescas under:— When did you first meet Edith Strangman, Dr Mackenzie?—On February 26th. How did you fix the date?—Because I saw her mother on the following day, February 27th. And that is how you fix the date?— Oh;-'.no, no. I am wrong again. I have a memorandum that I saw her on February 2Gth. Did you not'tell Detective-Sergeant Rawlo that you saw her on February sth ?—No.

Are you sure, because Detective Rawlo says you did?—Of course I am sure. Detective-Sergeant Eawle camo to me like a lawyer and asked me a lot of questions, but I produced a brajk and showed him that a doctor was not required to divulge information in, respect of certain professional happenings Did you not say to Rawie: "The Mrangnions wanted mo to assist them in having 'an abortion .procured on the daughter?" "Asked you?" rejoined tho witness. Mr Macassey repeated the question in a different form and received a reply in tho negative. Mr Macassey: "About this removal of the girl from the hospital, you assisted Nattrass?"—l did nothing of •tho sort (indignantly). !Hje was not assisted by mo; I did the whole thing myself.

Did you meet Nattrass in Napier in February of last year?—No. 1 Did you make a statement to De-tective-"Sergeaijt Rawlo that you saw Nattrass in Napier on February 22ud? —No. That is an absolute fable. Why did you call Dr Claridgo in on tho second occasion ?,»-I had a com plicated series of reasons for that. NURSE TICKERS DECEIVED. Had you not then mado up your mhi'l not tc perform a nasal operation?—No; I decided that after my interview with the girl. Why did you not tell Nurse Ticker* thot you had decided not to operate? -Because I was <a —— fool. Don't 30U tbink it was a disgraceful thing for you, a medical man, to dereive Nur&o Tinkers? —Up to noon of that day I intended to oporate. Why did you not tell her at night? j —Because she might have rung up for the police. Waa thero an arrangement that tho girl was to bo driven from tho hospital to Dr Claridge's?—No. I did not know she was driven there unti' the noxt -morning.

In cleeing tho evidence for the defence, Mr Skerrett said he was prepared to put iu an affidavit from Dr Johnson, of Napier, testifying fluat Nattrass had arranged for the care of the girl until after her confinen'.snt. If necessary, Dr Johnson would come to court. The court decided that neither course was necessary, becauijo it had not- been suggested that an attempt was made to procure an abortion on the girl, or that she was taken from the hospital for such a purpose. Before addressing tho court, Mr Skerrett eaid ho was not prepared to ■take the responsibility of bringing Miss Strangman to the court foe the purpose of examination, but ho wanted it to bo distinctly understood, that he had no objection to her being called. So 5 far as it lay in his power, he wouldt facilitate such a course. Certainly, hewas not going to take the responsibility of calling the girl to give evidence against, her parents. The court intimated that it would pay nothing about the matter, which was the concern of counsel.

ADDRESSES BV COUNSEL. MR SKERRETT'S SUBMISSIONS. "It is, of course, impossible to exaggerate the importance of this application to Dr Mackenzie,'' said Mr Skerrett, in oponing his address. "He is a man who at one time possessed a colonial reputation in his own profession. In his 33 years of public practice, no charge or accusation of impropriety has hitherto been preferred against him. I munt stress odo fact, that nothing but Dr Mackenzie's own story has been established. It was a foolish incident, and, as was shown hy his Gtory, which w;as. neither distempered nor coloured, nothing else. The court must move with the greatest caution and circumspection, not only in considering the evidence, but also in determining the amount of responsibility which must be attributed to Dr Mackenzie. There are two outstanding features in this case: (I) It is admitted that neither Dr Mackenzie nor Dr Claridge had the girl removed from the hospital for the purpose of, or connected with, tho procuration of on abortion; and (2) there is. no suggestion of a pecuniary promise ever having heen made by Nattrass to Dr Mackenzie or Dr Claridge. Did not these two adtnissione remove the chief stigma attaching to Dr Mackenzie by reason of his foolish action ? A curious phase of tho case is that Nattrass enlisted the (sympathy of Dr Mackenzie. Dr Mackeuzio says it was because ho wishjed to save the girl from an illegal operation. Apparently he was suffering from a lack of that faculty and reasoning which may come to us in our old age. That tho whole thing was done on the spur, of tho moment is shown by the fact that no provision for clothes for Miss Strangman had been made." ABOUT JUSTIFICATION. Mr Justice Herdman: Supposing Nattrass and Dr Mackenzie and Dr Claridge honestly believed that the parents intended to have an abortion procured on the girl, did that justify these two doctors in going to the hospital and taking the girl away as they did ?

Mr Skerrett: Perhaps not; but if it was not justification it was great Puliation. I submit' the whole thing was an error of judgment and one not blackened by pelf, or criminal intent. The girl was over 18 years of age and therefore beyond the" control of her parents. She could live where sho lik-

Mr Justice Chapman: Then why these elaborate precautions: the spectacular (light across the Strait- in a fast motor-launch ? Mr Skerrett: Dr Mackenzie seems to have moved in a spirit of enthusiasm. Mr Justice Chapman: More than that. Both doctors acted as though they were, retainers of Nattrass.

In conclusion, Mr Skerrett< quoted many authorities on the question ol what constituted infamous conduct and professional misconduct, and said that ho also relied on his objection in respect of the proceedings of the Medical Board. If the court considered a doctor guilty of unprofessional conduct it- was competent for the court to censure him and not remove his name from the registry: but if, on the other hand, the court was determined to remove tho from the register Their Honours might allot a N time when the doctor could reapplv for restoration to the register of his name. CONTENTIONS OF MR O'LEARY-

On behalf of Dr Claridsc, Mr H. F. O'Leary contended that he was guilty of nothing more, than an error of judg•ment. There were palliating circumstances, ho said, in connection with Dr Claridge's jwrticipation. All the evidence went to show that he knew nothing prior to Thursday night, March 7th, of the plot to get the girl away from he'r parents, and as a consequence had not the time to give tho matter consideration. Counsel submitted that even though the court decided Dr Claridge was guilty of a gravq impropriety, ho was not guilty («,' a

"grave impropriety in a professional respcci''—the words of the section of tho Act under which Dr Claridge was charged. He admitted that his contention would not bo sound if Dr Claridge had known on the morning of March 7th that the admission of the girl to the hospital was part of a plan to get her away from the- control ot her parents. When he took part in tho hospital episode he was not in tho pursuit of his profession, his professional connection with tho case having ceased. There was no contractual obligation existing as between Dr Claridgo and Mrs Strangman or Dr Claridgo and Miss Strangman. A LEGAL POINT. Mr Justice Edwards: Of course, there was an obligation. Ho gained their confidence, in tho pursuit uf his profession, and he abused the relationship so gained. Mr O'Leary: But there must bo an end to the obligation. Mr Justice) Edwards: Not until such I time as tho confidence is shaken. Tho moment the relationship is abused tho obligation i»nds. Ml- Justice Chapman: Dr Claridge went into the hospital as Dr Claridge, arid so got the girl away. Mr O'Leary contended that Dr Claridge entered the. hospital as a private person, but the Bench disagreed. In conclusion, counsel submitted that even though the court adiudg-ed Dr laridgc guilty of impropriety, it was not _ such a grave, impropriety as to justify the court in making an order for the removal of his name from tho register of medical practitioners.

I ON BEHALF OF BOARD. MR MACASSm r RSviEWS CASE, Mr Macassey reviewed the evidence, which, he said, clearly showed that Dr Claridgo knew at middav on Thursday, March 7th, of tho plan to Ret tho' (jirl aivnv from tho parents. ''One could have felt for the doctors," ha said, "if thev had como before the court and admitted they bad been carried away by Nattrass, but on the contrary they came into court and sought to blacken the characters of