THE STANTON CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9008, 15 August 1907, Page 1

THE STANTON CASE.

— CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER. ACCUSED FOUND GUILTY. William Stanton, known in Christohurch as a " healer," was indicted at the Criminal Sessions of the Supreme Court yesterday, before hie Honor Mr Justice Chapman, that in the month of April, 1907, he did commit the crime of manslaughter, in that while ministering to John Joseph Grea 11 cv he did fail to have and use reasonable" knowledge, skill and care in such treatment, and did thereby cause tho death of the said John Joseph Greaney. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Harper, pleaded not guilty. Mr Stringer, who conducted the case for the Crown, called Catherine Greaney.. sister of John Joseph Greaney, gave evidence. Michael Greaney, father of the deceased, gave evidence that he understood the accused to be a doctor and specialist. He had always addressed him as "doctor." On the Saturday the accused told him that there was nothing dangerous in the case, and on the Sunday he brought some powders. He did net name the complaint and -..ok no precautions to 1 prevent., persons passing in and out. Dr A. G. Pitts stated that he ha-i assisted Dr Symes in making a postmortem examination of the body of the deceased. There were signs of irritation in the stomach, but that had not cave .1 death. There was a diphtheritic membrane covering the throat from the back of the mouth extending througii the windpipe and bronchial tubef? into the lungs. It indicated a very advanced stage of virulent diphtheria. Hillings showed scattered patches of i_cen't pneumonia, the result of the^ extension of the diphtheria. The righ<" hmg at the top had been adherent to the chest wall as the result of an old and cured pleurisy. That had no relation to the death, which was caused by diphtheria. The diphtheritic membrane would have been epsdy visile from an examination of the throat, lne treatment described in evidence was not proper treatment for the disease The d"C_a -sd's general condition would be had and the temperature lower than usual, which was e.iso 'ciouslv characteristic of di_» -heria. The pulse and temperature should have been taken Th* essential treatment was the injection ot tlie ant'dote to the ooispn, and accessotv treatment would have been to maintain ihe deceased's strene+h with nroper food and stimulants and disinfect the throat, while precautions should have Veil taken against infection The anti-toxin treatment, which l_d" reduced the mortality from about 48 t>pt cent to 12 or 14 iw- cent, wa« the "inva- _Me treatment. The risk with pi .nor treatment would have been very s_a_. . To his Honor : He did not Think that the decks'. _ left off wo . on account of dinM. .-is. w"H oh in his opin '"on did not occur until the T" e<.a . . . s far as his exoerience w" nt the diohth <""a was of about a week's, duration. Tho use of com nr-ws ard 'frequent dosps of a powder" w" ; ch contained 90 per cent of Piicrar could not have h^en _ir»ti . c, al+Ti .ugh nerhars they would give ease. He could not conceive of a person with any knowlodg. $rea tins: in that way a case that he recosrmspc! <as diphtheria. A p"Tson with reason able knowledge and skill could hardly Jiave failed to recosn .c the complaint. Hardly, a mother would have failed to recognise it. _s far as it was poss'l. c to say he was of opinion that death had resulted from the neglect of reasonable ?a br W. H. Symes stated that he agreed with what Dr Pitts had said. The membrane was easily visible, and should have been seen most # readily by any person possessing ordinary skill. The accused's treatment was soothing and palliative, but not curative. The disease would not have been checked at all. Probably the deceased would have ■ recovered' with ordinarily skilful treatment. By the accused's method he had practically none. Dr C Louisson gave similar evidence. Alexander Augustus Bickerton, Gov«rnment analyst, said that he had analysed the powders, which consisted of. icing sugar alone. He did not detectany trace of a, homoeopathic medicine in the mixture. Detective Kennedy gave evidence that the accused had on his house the 6ign " Stanton, the healer and medical specialist." ' . Mr Harper said that he proposed to show that the accused was a man. of good general education and some 6kiil, and not grossly ignorant. He had witnesses who had been treated successfully hy the accused. for instance, there was the case of Miss Greaney, whom he had treated. His Honor said that he could not say what was admissible and what not. There was no evidence of what Miss Greaney's complaint was. It might have been a sore throat, from which she would havo recovered in any event. The case which he wouid put to the jury was whether a .man m a city

where skilled attention was procurable, holding himself out as capable of taking the case, did not undertake the treatment of the deceased to the end that he might be cured, and whether he > had not, in doing so, professed impliedly that he had, and whether he did have reasonable knowledge and skill to ascertain that the case was one of diphtheria. Mr Harper said that he would not call the evidence. Addressing the jury, he said that the vital part of the section of the Code under which the accused was charged lay in the words " and is criminally responsible for omitting, without lawful excuse, to discharge that duty, if death was caused by the omission. ' The jury would nave to be satisfied that death was caused by omission on the accused's part. On the fourth day of the disease lie did not detect that the case was one of diphtheria, but while he thought that it was a case of inflammation of the throat he was constant in his attendace, and his kindness and attentiveness were all that could be desired. All that the doctors said was that tho deceased might have recovered if anti-toxin had been administered on the fourth day. If. the jury was satisfied of the probability that death would have resulted under any circumstances, especially taking into consideration the time that had elapsed, it would be # impossible to bring the accused within the meaning of the section. They would have to be satisfied that death was caused by an omission on his part, by something that he ought to have done, and failed to do. There was no suggestion that death was caused by something that he did do. They must be satisfied that there was "hn absence of reasonable knowledge and skill, in other words, that the accused was grossly negligent in what he undertook to do, and that he omitted to do something without lawful excuse, by which death was caused. The deceased was not known to the accused, who had not sought him out. The accused examined him to the best of his ability and prescribed, being constant in his attention. Before the jury came to the conclusion that he had been guilty of manslaughter they must be convinced that he was the person who caused the death through gross ignorance and omission, rather than that the deceased would have died even if the anti-toxin had been administered. His Honor, in summing up, said that the case was undoubtedly one of importance in connection with the general security of the public. There were persons who picked up a good deal of experience in the sick-room, and could effect cures thereby ; and those persons received a considerable amount of protection from the law, especially when ( they were distant from places whereregular medical attendance might be procured. Consequently, the Criminal Code always made an exception in cases of necessity. Granting that Mr Harper had called evidence and shown that accused had on occasions successfully treated eases, they would not know the measure of his success or failure. They had to consider the actual legal responsibility, and how far the accused had discharged it. Applying the Criminal Code to the case there was no suggestion that there had been neglect. The accused seemed to have been attentive when he took the case in hand. The basis of the charge was that having undertaken to administer medical treatment in a town where a hospital and the highest skill were available, the accused undertook to administer medical treatment in a case in which he showed a total want of the reasonable knowledge and skill necessary. The duty of the jury was to inquire how far the charge was supported by the evidence, and unless it was supported by the evidence, they must acquit the accused. They must consider what was the cause of death. There was nothing to suggest that when the deceased first left off work he had more than some ordinary throat affection, but he was then in the condition most susceptible to diphtheria germs, if they were in the neighbourhood. From the known history of the disease the medical witnesses said that on the Friday when the deceased was taken to the accused he was in all probability in the third or fourth day of the disease. As the case was never diagnosed, and as there was only one treatment for diphtneria, it was clear that the sugar powders had no medical value, so that there had been no treatment appropriate to the disease. If the accused bad diagnosed the case, his duty would have been to send the patient to the Hospital. The sister and father understood him to be a medical _ man, and apparently he held himself out as a healer, and cancer and medical specialist. The medical evidence, which did not seem to be impeached, was that the ° ctual cause of death was diphtheria. That being so, although the inquiry was entirely in the jurors' hands, and they were the sole judges of the evidence, if it was made out that diphtheria was the cause of death, they would have to consider what responsibility the accused undertook, and whether he undertook that responsibility in a matter in which he was grossly ignorant : whether he undertook it at a rime when life could have and ought to have been saved ; and whether he showed that gross ignorance which rendered him culpable. A person was not to blame £ot gross ignorance in attending in cases of necessity in the back country, but, .in tho case before them, what was put forward was that the man who professed to be a healer undertook to diagnose the caso, and that," in doing so, according ' to the medical evidence, he showed lamentable want of skill. Tlie principal question was, in connection with the diagnoses on the Friday and Saturday, whether his failure to diagnose diphtheria was due to that kind of ignorance, and that want of reasonable knowledge and skill and care which the Act marked as the limit in connection with criminal responsibility. The jury must give the fullest consideration to the suggestion of the accused's counsel that the disease was so far gone on tho Friday that the young man would have died in any case. In that connection, the combined experience of the medical authorities Avas to the effect that on the fourth day the chances of recovery were 85 to 15. He could only put it to the jurors to consider, as men of com-mon-sense, having all the evidence as to the probabilities of the cassy and making every allowance for the consideration that it was the duty of the Crown to prove the case, and that, in case of substantial doubt, tlie doubt was always solved in favour of the accused person, whether or not tho deceased would have lived if ho had been treated properly on the Friday. They were not to be interfered with by sentimental considerations, or preconceived ideas regarding unregistered or registered men. The jury, after thirty minutes' retirement, brought in a verdict of " guilty," with a strong recommendation to mercy on the ground that the accused, although ignorant, had 'done his best. Mr Harper asked his Honor to fine the accused only, as had been done in many similar cases. * His Honor said that he would defer* sentence until the morning. 1 Mr Harper said that he could cail ■

*. ■ i witnesses as to character. In a similar case the prisoner, although found guilty, had only been fined. His Honor said that ' Mr ' Harper might mention the witnesses in the morning. He did not think that the case quoted threw any light on that before the Court. He would simply have to consider what was the proper course. . On Mir Harper's application, the prisoner was released on his former bail until ten o'clock on the following morning. ■_----__—___-__—-—-=_: