CONDUCT OF MEDICAL MAN

Taranaki Daily News, 8 April 1927, Page 7

CONDUCT OF MEDICAL MAN

ALLEGATION OF INFAMOUS ACT. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. An application was made in the Supreme Court to-day, before Mr. Justice Reed, by the New Zealand Medical Council to have Doctor George Oscar Jacobsen, of Wellington, struck oil the register of medical practitioners, on the grounds of infamous professional conduct, it being alleged that on June 30, 1926, he gave the name and address of Mrs. Nevill, 150 Queen’s Drive, Lyall Bay, to a pregnant woman, as a person who might be able to procure" an abortion. Evidence was given by a woman as to receiving a scrap of paper with the above name and address on it from Dr. Jacobsen, but she admitted that there was nothing on the paper to indicate that had come from him. She admitted also that she consulted with Dr. Jacobsen ’because she through he might know of some such woman. She stated that she was disappointed that the doctor himself had not done anything for her, beyond giving her a prescription for medicine, which detectives admitted was later proved to be a tonic, and not for purposes of procuring an abortion. She admitted in cross-ex-amination that the word “abortion” was never used in the interview with Dr. Jacobsen, nor did he say: “Go to Mrs. Nevill. She will put you right.” Witness said, however, that Dr| Jacobsen stated that Mrs. Nevill might be able to do something for her. Dr. Jacobsen, in giving evidence, denied advising witness, whom he did not recollect calling on him —but was willing to assume he had seen her—to go to a woman who might procure an abortion. On the contrary, he advised witness against that when she suggested it. He denied giving her - Mrs. Nevill’s address, or that he had ever acted in conjunction, Or in concert with Mrs. Nevill, although, he had attended professionally the daughter, son and grandson of Mrs. Nevill.

In dismissing the application, the judge said the question was one purely of fact, the doctor’s word against the woman’s. The woman’s word was uncorroborated. He did not think the court would be justified in agreeing to the application unless the evidence was clear and cogent, and the onus was upon the Medical Council to prove it will all that particularity and certainty which must be required in a criminal charge. The case really resolved itself into a girl’s word against that of a doctor. He could find no corroboration. Suspicious circumstances had been answered by reasonable explanations and, outside these explanations there was absolutely no corroboration.