SMALLFIELD CASE

Southland Times, Issue 19255, 20 June 1921, Page 6

SMALLFIELD CASE

CORONER’S VERDICT. INSURANCE COMPANY’S ACTION JUSTIFIED. (Special to the Times.) HAMILTON, June 18. The conclusion of what is said to be one of the most remarkable cases in the history of New Zealand took place to-day, when Mr H. A. Young, S.M., gave his verdict in the second inquest upon Cecil Robert Smallfield, stock agent, of Hamilton. Notwithstanding two exhumations the presence of carbolic acid in the body was never satisfactorily explained and although a verdict l of heart failure was returned, the exact | cause of Smallfield’s death remains a mystery. In giving his decision, the Coroner said: “On January 26, 1921, the deceased disappeared whilst bathing in the Waikato river about five miles below the place from which deceased disappeared on January 1. Qn my order a post morten examination i was made and the body was .buried the • same day. The inquest was concluded on ; February 23, 1921, when I found that the ! deceased died at Hamikon on January 26, I 1921, the cause of death being failure of i the heart while bathing in cold water. On March 16, 1921, a second post-mortem examination was made and some of the organs were removed for analysis. The result of this analysis, which was made by the Dominion analyst, was communicated to the police and at the request and with the consent of all the parties interested I reopened the inquest, the evidence then produced having caused a doubt to arise as to the identity of the body in question. With the consent of all the parties interested I ordered it to be disinterred for the purpose of identification only. This order was

carried out on June 14 and the evidence subsequently submitted established beyond any doubt whatever the identity of the deceased. The analysis made b ythe Dominion Analyst show’s that there was sufficient carbolic acid in the body of the deceased on March 16 to have caused his death, if it had been in the body at the time of death. The evidence of the analyst shows that the poison found by him was pure carbolic acid, as distinguished from commercial disinfectants which contain both phenol and creosol and that such acid could be obtained only from a druggist. The police inquired from all druggists in the Auckland province and could find no evidence of the deceased hav-

ing purchased carbolic acid. The evidence shows that carbolic acid did not by human agency get on to or into the body from the time it was recovered until it was buried and carbolic acid was not used at the second post-mortem examination. Deceased could not on the evidence have taken it accidentally and any idea that it was administered by anyone else can with safety be set aside. The medical evidence shows that on the undisputed facts set out in the evidence the decased did not die as the result of taking one dose onl yof carbolic acid. He might have taken repeated small doses well diluted over a period of time, but the weight of medical evidence is that this is improbable and that his actions and the state of his mind as disclosed by the evidence w’ere inconsistent with his having done so. A possible explanation of the presence of carbolic acid in the body is contained in the evidence of the Dominion Analyst. It is possible that a recently isolated organism (bacillus phenologenes) was present in deceased’s body and it might have produced the carbolic acid found by the analyst. It is clear from the evidence of the medical witnesses that the first post-mortem was incomplete. The body was not opened sufficiently to enable an adequate inspection of the organs in situ to be made. The bladder was not opened, the kidneys were not removed and the braim was not examined. It is, however, e’ear from this examination that death was not due to drowning or to heart disease. The tw r o medical practitioners present at this examination dame to the conclusion that the heart was abnormally small. They did not, how-ever, weigh it and the evidence shows that they should not have concluded it was abnormally small without first having weighed it. One of the practitioners on further considering the matter later on came to the conclusion that he should not have been satisfied that the heart was abnormally small. After the inquest was re-opened they both said that the walls of the heart were abnormally thin. They, however, said nothing about this when first giving evidence and the evidence shows that this fact, if ascertained, should have been recorded and stated in evidence. The evidence previously given by one of them is quite inconsistent with the discovery of abnormally thin heart walls. It might be that these abnormalities actually existed, but on the evidence I cannot say that it has been proved that both or either of them existed. Even if the heart was found to be abnormal in structure, the evidence shows that the practitioners should not have concluded their examinations without having excluded other possible causes of death. It is not suggested that any disease condition that might have been revealed by a fuller ■ examination of the kidney could have by itself have caused deceased to die under the circumstances under which he did die. It is, however, suggested an examination of the ! brain might have revealed such evidence of disease as could have caused death. The 1 medical authorities show that a certain cerebral haemorrhage could cause death instantaneously. They also show, and so does the evidence, that it is possible for the heart of a person in sound health to fail owing to unusual exertion whilst in cold water. The evidence also shows that the presence of carbolic acid in the system might cause shock and heart failure and that the effect would be accentuated by exertion. There are also other possible causes of deceased’s death. In the absence of any convincing evidence of a definite cause of death, I can only find that deceased died of heart failure. In view of the adverse comments made in Court I think I should state that considering the amount of the insurance policies and the other extraordinary circumstances, in my opinion the officers of the insurance organisations would have failed in their duty to policy holders had they not assisted in the investigation. I thank cousels and others for their assistance.”