WAIKATO MYSTERY

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 227, 20 June 1921, Page 6

WAIKATO MYSTERY

STILL REMAINS UNSOLVED

“DEATH DUE TO HEART FAILURE ”

THE CORONER’S FINDING

By Telegraph—Special Correspondent

Hamilton, June 18

The conclusion of what is said to be one of the most remarkable cases in the history of New Zealand was reached today when Mr. H. A. Young, S.M., gave his verdict in tho second inquest upon Cecil Robert Smallfield, stock agent, of Hamilton. Notwithstanding two exhumations, the presence of carbolic acid in the body was never satisfactorily explained, and although a verdict of heart failure was returned, the exact cause of Smallfield’s death remains a mystery. In giving his decision, tho Cc roller said: "On January 26, 1921, the deceased disappeared whilst bathing in the Waikato River. On my order a post-mortem examination was made and the body was buried the same day. Tho inquest was concluded on February 23, 1921, when I found that the deceased died at Hamilton on January 26, 1921, the cause of death being failure of the heart whilst bathifig in cold water. "On March 16, 1921, a second postmortem examination was made end some of the organs were removed for analysis. The result of this, analysis, which was made by the Dominion Ai'alyst, was communicated to the police. At the request and with the consent of all the parties interested I reopened the inquest. The evidence then produced having caused a doubt to arise as to tho identity of the body, with the consent of all the parties interested I ordered it to be disinterred for the purpose of identification only. This order was carried out on June 14, and the. evidence subsequently submitted established beyond any doubt whatever the identity of the deceased. , . "The analysis made by the Dominion Analyst shows' that there was sufficient carbolic acid in the body of the deceased on March 16 to have caused his death if it hud been in the body at the time of death. The evidence of the analyst shows that the poison found by him was pure carbolic acid as distinguished from commercial disinfectants, which contain both phenol and creosol, and that such acid could be obtained only from a druggist. The police inquired .from nil druggists in the Auckland province, and could find no evidence of the deceased having purchased carbolic acid. •'The evidence shows that carbolm acid did not. by human agency get on to or into the body from the time it whs recovered until it was buried, and carbolic acid was not used at the second post-mortem examination. Deceased could not, on the evidence, have taken it accidentally, nnd any idea that it was administered by anyone else can be set aside. The medical evidence, shows that on the undisputed facts set out in tie evidence the deceased did not die as the result of taking one dose only of carbolic acid. He might have taken repeated small doses, well diluted, over a period of time, but the weight of medical evidence is that this Is that his actions and the state of h mind as disclosed by the. evidence woie inconsistent with his having done so "A possible explanation of the presence of carbolic acid in the tedy is contained in the’evidence of U 0 Dominion Analyst. It is possible < • recently-isolated organism phenologcnes) was re-esent in the deceased body, and it might have produced t cartelic acid found bv the analyst ■«Tt is clear from the evidence, of the medical witnesses that the first postmortem examination was incomplet . The body was not opened sufficiently t enable an adequate inspection of the argans in situ to lie made.. The bla<l der was not opened, the kidneys « not removed, and the brain was not examined. It is. however, clear from this examination that death was due 1 drowning or to heart disease. medical practitioners present nt this , amination came io the conclusion t at tho heart was abnormally StrtJra 7>™ it, h„. "4fter the inquest was reopened, they both stated that the walls of the heart were abnormally thin. They, hoyenr, said nothing about this when first giving evidence, and the evidence shows 41,r,f this fact if ascertained, should have been recorded and stated in evidence The evidence previously given bvone of them is quite with the discovery of abnormally thin teart walls. It might bo theA these nbnormalities actually existed but otf 'the evidence I cannot say that it lias men fXi C <o IT l °possible Ca T S is° f not a ireted that any diseased condition that might Ti ev a fuller examination of the AKine could by cd jn ‘ThVeh he is lowev suggested that an died. It is, ’ • nl j„ht have CXam W such evidence of disease as 3 caused death. Medical authorities show XX’TTI~ so do M the ,i LYiaV tho effort would h© Ot ”T n P fhe absence of any •a .af n rlofinite cause of death. 1 :i l n only find that deceased died heart fa "T,r'view of adverse comments made in Court I Orink I should state that P rance e :. ifnre opinion the "TX’Sn’b insurance policy-holders had ed in their ° ' I thank nO and others for their assistance.” —