THE HAMILTON MYSTERY

Southland Times, Issue 19250, 14 June 1921, Page 5

THE HAMILTON MYSTERY

DEATH OF C. R. SMALLFIELD AN ANALYST’S INVESTIGATIONS (Per United Press Association.) HAMILTON, June 13. The adjourned inquest touching the death of Cecil Robert Smallfield, whose body was found in the Waikato river, was resumed this afternoon. Dr Maclaurin, Dominion Analyst, recalled, • said he had written since to the Coroner i giving the result of investigations of the effects that in certain circumstances minute I quantities of carbolic acid produced in a ' dead body during the process of putrefaction. He quoted Berthelot in support of his statement. Witness gave references to authorities from which he had obtained new facts. He had not found any authority who declared that carbolic acid was formed in the body in large amounts after death. The last word had not been said on this subject, however. It had been known for some time that certain bacilli produced carbolic but in small quantities. It was also known that small quantities of phenol (or carbolic acid) were produced during putrefaction after death, probably due to the same bacilli that produced it during life. If this bacillus continued its work during life it would probably continue after death. It was probable that the bacillus was in New Zealand. The food necessary for the production of the particular bacilli that formed carbolic was present in the body in question. Berthelot did not say that the human body was the best media for the production of carbolic acid. In the organs he examined there was enough tyrosin to produce the carbolic acid he had found. The only case in his experience in which he had found carbolic acid produced in a putrefying body after death was the case of a dog. He could not say whether the carbolic acid found in the dog was due to putrefaction or whether carbolic had been given to the dog. Berthelot only found the bacillus in cases where the subjects suffered from intestinal trouble. He would not say that a person who had had his appendix removed nine years ago would suffer from intestinal trouble. He would say that a person would have suffered from intestinal trouble where there was signs of inflammation of the intestines. His later report to the Coroner was not entirely speculative. He had not found evidence which proved that more than small amounts could be formed. Berthelot was a man of some standing in his profession. Berthelot had said that further investigation was necessary in order to prove that the bacillus could not exist in the bodies of healthy persons. Hugh Douglas, surgeon, said that when he was superintendent of the Waikato Hospital in 1912 he removed the appendix from a patient named Cecil Robert Smallfield. To counsel: An appendix once removed would not grow again. Assuming that Dr Hector said he had examined the same man and found an appendix he would be making a mistake.

To the Coroner: An appendicitis scar would always remain, and on a body buried on the date mentioned and exhumed later it would be possible to recognise it. To counsel: After eight yeats the scar of an appendicitis operation would have grown fainter, and unless looked for closely it might escape observation, especially if the body had been immersed in water. Ruston Cranwell, dentist, said he knew deceased and had treated him professionally. He gave details of a tooth that was missing. Dr Pinfold’s description of the top set of the body he examined was correct. Witness had seen Smallfield shortly before his death, when he was quite normal and not depressed. Sergeant Edwards said he had made inquiries of the chemists in the Auckland province, and no record of a sale of carbolic to deceased had been found.

Constable Dixon said he recognised the body taken from the river as that of Smallfield, whom he knew well.

Charles Dimmer, deceased’s father-in-law, gave corroborative evidence.

Mr Gillies asked for the re-exhumation of the body to settle the matter of identification.

Mr Ostler objected, and said that the evidence was sufficient. The inquest was adjourned to allow of the recall of Dr Pinfold, who made the post mortem examination.’