STRANGMAN SEDUCTION. SCANDAL.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXXI, Issue 70, 11 October 1920, Page 6

STRANGMAN SEDUCTION. SCANDAL.

Per Press Association. Wellington, October 11. The case to have th© names of Dr. Mackenzie and Dr. Claridge struck off the Medical Register was continued before the Full Pourt. Mr Skorrett submitted, that the only way the opinion of the Medical Board could be expressed was by resolution, and as no expression had been given as to grave or infamous conduct, the Court had no jurisdiction. A motion was that th© matter he referred to the Attorney-Genera i for permission to take jhe matter before the Supreme Court, but no specific changes were made. The Court would not express any opinion at the moment, but Mr Skerrett’s objection was noted. Formal evidence was given by Charles Drake as to the procedure of the New Zealand Medical Board. Dr. Macgilj, member of the Medical Board, considered that Dr. (Claridge and Dr. Mackenzie were guilty of the .charges against thorn, and therefore inferred the matter to the Attorney-General. Dr. Claridge, in evidence, said die

qualified at Durham University aiid had been practicing since 1917. Ho was employed by the United Friendly Society in February 1919 at his retfi- » dence, Tinakori Boad. He was asked by Strongman to get his daughter out of trouble and witness refused. He received a second offer from Strongman a few days later and again refused. He was requested a third time to procure abortion on the night of til* abduction. Dr, Mackenzie called at witness’ house for a social visit and Nnttrass called later. This was the first time witness had seen * Nattrass. The position was discussed. Witness was informed that the girl Strangman had asked Dr. Mackenzie -to save he; from the operation which her parents wished her to undergo for abor tion. Ho went with Dr. Mackenzie * and Na.ttrass to the hospital. While Dr. Mackenzie took the night muse into the kitchen for tea, witness told the girl that Nattrass was waiting outside for her in a motor. She followed him outside, and they drove to witnesses’ house, where she was supplied with clothes. In answer to Mr Macassy, wituo-s said he told Chief Detective Boddam he had been to perform wi operation for abortion.

When Mrs Strongman was under crop'-exnmination in tlie rase, Mr Skerrett asked: How much money did you get from Kattrass? —i didn’t got anything. I was not the plaintiff. Well, how much did your husband get?—l don’t know; about £’ho, after expenses had been paid. Are you surwP I ana told the sßnnint yfas about £OSO ? -Oh, no, it

was not that much. We go* it for the girl. Where is the money?—We are keeping it for onr daughter. It is in the savings bank.

At this stage the witness began to cry, and she told Mr Skerrett that |io had np rjg|it to ask her questions about money. They had get the money from Nat trass because was the only way to punish him. Counsel informed the court that ho weald not press the point then; he would got the information later.