WATER WORKS COMPANY v. DR. CRAWFORD.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2747, 6 December 1871, Page 2

WATER WORKS COMPANY v. DR. CRAWFORD.

To the Editor. Sir—After Dr. Cowie’s letter, which appeared in your last evening’s Issue, perhaps you will allow mo to state a fact which will confirm the correctness of the evidence of Drs. Borrows and Hammond, who are duly qualified medical practitioners. Dr. Cowio states in his letter “ that their evidence was based on a glimpse of Dr. Crawford in the street, or a stolen glance or glances at hicn through the door or window of his place of business.’’ It accidentally came to my knowledge that a third duly qualified medical practioner, holding a high standing in the profession, had been culled in by Dr. Crawford on Monday, the 4th ult., to examine him with a view to his giving him (Or. Crawford) a medical certificate of inability to attend Court on that morning ; and 1 have bis permission to state that, after a careful examination, he informed Dr. Crawford that his lungs were perfectly sound : that in his opinion there was nothing to prevent his appearing in Court or transacting any other business he might require, and that he could not conscientiously give him a certificate of illhealth. At my informant’s special request that his name should not be published, I refrain from doing so ; but am allowed by him, should anyone desire to know it, to state it privately. It will be seen that his opinion was not based on a cursory glimpse or stolen glances a'. Dr. Crawford, but after a careful personal examination such as Dr. Cowie’s was supposed to be. I am, &c., William Begg. Dunedin, Dec. G, 1871. To the Editor. Sir, —Dr Cowie’s letter remarking on my evidence in the case of the Water Works Company v. Dr Crawford, which appeared in your issue of last night, requires, 1 consider, no comment from me. Yours, &c., Samuel Hammond, Dunedin, December 5.