A STORMY SCENE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1709, 28 March 1913, Page 5

A STORMY SCENE.

AT ST. HELENS HOME INQUIRY. ALLEGATION AND DENIAL. " YOU SAID I HAD TOLD A LIE.' (By Telogiaph.-Prosa Association.) Auckland;' Marcli 27. Aa exciting interlude occurred' at tho St. Helens Home inquiry this morning. , her closing:, address, Mrs.. Emily mcol (who was principally instrumental , ut securing lho> inquiry) made an allegaition affecting the actions of tho oftiaiaL : recorder of tlio cvidenco taken at tho- inquiry (Air. 1?. J, Stewart). ' t M-r.s. NfcoL stated tiiat at tho ooncl'u- . tuon of the evidence given by tho medical «lileer of rho institution (Dr. Tracey uiglis), tho latter neglected to- sign some : of the sheets on which his evidence had . been typed,, and' further that but lor her : intervention at the time the sheets' in . question would, not have been l signed, thusallowing, of tho pbssibility of alteration : I'Eioro. linal signature, Tlio Commissioner (Mr. C. C. Kettle, i S.M.), indignantly refuted' tho impeaclvl inent of .Mr. Sto.varb (who-was-temporar- | ily absent), and' stated with eonsidemhle : warmth that there' was no truth in' llrs. ; NicoPs inference. . ' ' , Mrs. Nicol resented' tho questioning, cf licit voracity, and with a. suggestion 1 of ; iionj;-remarked that his loyalty ■ to his- staff ;ms- sublime. Amid much coniusioi, tho,Commissioner 'called npon Mr: Stewart (who had just ; returned to court) to enter tho witnessbox to bo sworn. Tho Commissioner: Mrs. NicolUms stated that when Dr. Inglis was giving evi- ; donee in regard to Mr.' Chamberlain's caso ■ you deliberately alio ved' some of file pages : to go unsigned with ail improper motive. : What have yoj fo say. to that?" Mr. Ste wart (indignantly): It is monstrously untrue. ! Mrs.. Nicol-: You- have misrepresented:' ' >110,. your' Worship. . Tho Commissioner (/landing' tlio - official 1 copy of tho evidence to Mr; Stewart) :Is I that tho evidence given l by Dr. Inglis? Mr, Stewart: Yes, sir, and' I may say I that Mrs: Nicol has a copy of it as it was- ; originally typed; \ Mrs. Nicol. -excitedly denied- possession'. ; of arcopy, and'dramatically went through | wmu papers as 'an. inferenco of 'what- silo alleged l transpired? between Di\' Ingli's and'. , Mr. Stewart. , .:... ..

"I immediately went 'up. to you," - proceeded' Mrs. Nicol, "and said I wanted Co-look-at Dr. Ingl'is's signature to those papers, and I found that four or Ave sheets had not been * Mr. Stewart: I said' to you—.Mrs. Nicol (interrupting) .-"-Then you admit that I did go up to you?' Mr. Stewart: Your question, caused mo to look at tho sheets. I then saw that Dr. Inglds had omitted to sign two or thrco papers; Mrs. Nicol (disgustedly): Omitted? Oh, your Worship! " The Commissioner (to-''Mr.-'Stewart) Was there any suggestion by Dr.,.lnglis of alterations and rectifying to' suit liis wish?' Mv.- Stewart: None whatever. Mrs. Nicol' (positively): I saw the alterations. - Mr. Stewart that there were only customary marginal corrections.,". The Commissioner: That will' do.—*'" Mr; Stewart: Thank you. Mrs. Nicol: Mr: Stewart's statement corresponds -exactly with what I said! if hen you said- I had told a lie, your Worship. The Commissioner: I'"did not say anything of the kind. Wliftt I 'did say was that there was no tSuth< in. tlio<> suggestions you' made. Mrs. Nicol (throwing'her'papers■ disgustedly on' the tciblo) : I feel 7very ,piu,s.h hurt that you have placed mo in the position of being a liar. The Commissioner: It is a. pity that such statements, are made in this court. They only create, unnecessary- ill-feeling. Mrs. Nicol (forcefully): You.aio.standing, loyal to your officer, who' has 110 right to your loyalty. Talk about, the barb-wife fences' that I have had' to" climb over in the course of this inquiry j_thiais only one of many such obstructions. If these things aro not pointed out they will still go ori. The- storm having spent itself, Mrs. Nicol resumed her address to the Commissioner.

,/ INSPECTION OF CASE BOOKS. AN EXPLANATION;" - (By relegraph.—Preek' Associations' Auckland, March 27. Tho inquiry into the administration cf St. Helens Ho 110 'was concluded to-day, lefore tin Commissioner (Mr. ;,.C. .• C. Kettle, S.JI.). ;, In'o, further evidence w«» token, but addresses were delivered by Mrs. iimily Nicol and 11 r. A. 11. Skelton. No address was delivered by Mr.' Selwyu Mays. ' 1 . Sir. Hays intimated that he wished to make an explanation in regard to a Ministerial telegram lift had quoted between the first an<l second hearing of the- special case in the Supreme Court. Ho had telcgmphed to the Inspector-General of Hospitals to ascertain whether lio should use tlio argument that oompulsory or general, inspection of case books was contrary to the interests of public policy. On March 19, tho day before final arg'iKcfit Was heard in tho Supremo Court, he bad received a. telegram from tho Minister, the full text of which \va6 as fol°"In answer to your telegram addressed to the Inspector-General of Hospitals, I 0111 distinctly of opinioa that it would bo detrimental to the public interests if a piceedent wfiro established that' would allow hospital casa books containing family histories of pitients. which are often of an extremely private nature, to be available for genaul inspection However, the importanco of tins question 13 such that the Judge of the Supreme.Court will undoubtedly Tecogmse. and I havfe no I'oubt he will not give a ruling, allowing inspection of such books, unless ho is confident that such inspection is necessary lor tho purposes of the inquiry." Continuing, Mr. Mays said that as tho giound of the Department's objection to the inspection (of books from tho very outset was that Such an inspection vas contrary to the interests of a largo body of i the community, it was desirable to obtain a ruling as to whether in .tho circumstances that lino of defence should .be taken. That point had been raised by hi:n in the Supremo Court, but the Judge lift I. bfen. unable to decide it, mflil'.ly because be had not sufficient knowledge of the con. tents of the case books and of tho general trend of the evidence' given at the inquiry. ' The judge had intimated that tli« matter was one for the Commissioner to decide if tho point was raised subsequently. This had left tho point still open to be raised at the inquiry when complainants made application to inspect those i portions of tlio books which were not privileged on the ground of being, winmunicatioils to a' medical officer. Mr. Mays said that in citing a portion of tho Minister's telegram to tho Commissioner on Wednesday, lio had merely wished to intimate that tho point was still open, antl was supported by authority and could bo taken up If necessary in tho presont «isp. Tho examination of the books by the matron and himself on Wednesday had shown what portions were entitled to ho sealed up as privileged. Ho added tliero was no objection, apart from that of public policy, to tho showing of tho unprivileged portion to counsol for complainant. Ho desired to make tho foregoing explanation booauso it might havp been construed thot tho Minister was dotermined to refuso inspeotion of the books in any event, even if, fin-fly by the judge anil afterwards by tho Commissioner, it was thought that the general inspection of tho unprivileged portion was nccossary for tho purposes of tho inquiry. In conclusion, he stated that ho had pointed out the position to Mr. Skelton, and tlio latter had said ho was quito satisfied therewith. Happily, therefore, it was not necessary to press tho point further, as the matter would end without the lwoks tains inspected, and without either party waiving its rights. \ The Commissioner ftjmrkcd that it was a pity tho question , had over been raised. , . ' Tho inquiry was then closed, the Commissioner intimating that his -report would so in aa early as possible. i