THE SMALLFIELD MYSTERY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16452, 14 June 1921, Page 4

THE SMALLFIELD MYSTERY.

IDENTITY IN DOUBT. INQUEST RESUMED. [Per Press Association ] HAMILTON, June 13. Tile adjourned inquest regarding the death of Cecil Robert Smallfield. whose body was found in the Waikato "River, and was subsequently exhumed, was resumed this afternoon. Dr M’Laurin. Dominion Analyst, recalled, said that lie had wrilten duo© to the Coroner giving the result of certain investigations, that in certain circumstances minute quantities of earholio acid were produced in a dead body during the process of putrcfaci tion. He quoted Berthlot in support ! of Tho statement. Witness gave refer- ; cnees to authorities from which he had j obtained new facts. He had not founyl ; any authority who declared that ear- | bolie acid was found in a body in large j amounts after death. The last word I had not been said on this subject, bow- | ever. ft had been known for some time that certain bacilli produced c-ar- ' belie acid, but in small quantities. It i also was known that small quantities ! ot phenol for carbolic. acid) were pro- | diioed during putrefaction after death. , probably due to the same bacilli that 1 produced it. during life. If this bacilI Jus continued to work during life probj ably it continued in the. body after ; death. Probably the bacillus was in j New Zealand. The food necessary for | the production of the particular bacilli : that formed carbolic was present in the i body in question. Berthlot did not i say that the human body was the best medium for the production of carbolic acid. In the organs he examined there i was enough tyrosin to produce carbolic j acid. The only case in his experience j in which lie had found carbolic acid I produced in a. putrefying body was the j ease of a dog. Ho. could not say whether | the carbolic acid found in tlm dog was J due to putrefaction or whether carbolic j had been given to the dog. Berthlot j only found the bacillus in cases where j the subjects suffered from intestinal j trouble. He would not say that a. por- ; son who had hi.-, appendix removed nine yours ago would suffer from intestinal trouble. He would say that a person mould have suffered from intestinal ; trouble where there were signs ol in--1 flammation of the intestines. His later report to the Coroner Mas not entirely j speculative. He had not found ovi- { donee which proved that more than J small amounts of carbolic could he ; formed. Berthlot was a man of some i standing in tho profession. Berthlot. ; had said that further investigation j was necessary in order to prove that | the bacillus could not exist in the j bodies of healthy persons. Huge Douglas, surgeon, said that I when he. was superintendent of the Waikato Hospital in 191‘2 ho removed the appendix from a patient named Cecil Robert Small fieldTo counsel :An append : x once removed would not grow again. Assuming that Dr Hector said he had examined the same man and found the. appendix lie would he making a mistake. To the Coroner : An appendicitis on* eration scar would always remain. On a body buried on the date mentioned and exhumed later it would be possible to recognise it. To counsel : After eight, years the scar of an appendicitis operation would have grown fainter and unless looked for closely might escape observation, especially on a body immersed in water. Ruston Cranwcll. dentist, said that h© knew deceased and had treated him professionally. He gave details of a tooth missing. Dr Pinfold’s description oi’ the top set on the. body examined was correct. Witness had seen Smallfield shortly before his death, lfe was quite normal and not depressed. Sergeant Edwards said that he had made inquiries of chemists in the Auckland province and no record of sales of carbolic* to deceased had been found Constable Dixon said that he recognised the body taken from tho river as that of Smallfield. whom he knew well. Charles Dimmer, deceased’s father-in-law. gave corroborative evidence. Mr Gillies asked for re-exhumation of the body to settle the matter of identification. Mr Ostler objected. He said that tho evidence was sufficient. Ihe inquest was adjourned to allow of the recall of Dr Pinfold, who made tho post mortem examination.