Reading for Everybody.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2221, 26 October 1907, Page 2 (Supplement)

Reading for Everybody.

A REMARKABLE ACTION.

DOUBLE-HEADED BABY. A GRUESOME DISCUSSION. Yesterday (says the Sydney "Morning Herald”, of October 7) an action was heard in the District Court, before Judge Rodgers, in which the issue was the possession of the remains of a double-headed baby. The plaintiff, Reuben Doudeward, of Harris street, Pyrmouth, sued Police Subinspector James Spence for the wrongful detention of a jar containing a certain amount of chemical fluid and a “certain scientific exhibit,' namely, a baby with two heads. Mr. Curtis, instructed by Mr. P. J. Clines, appeared for the plaintiff; and Air. Piddington, instructed by tile Crown Solicitor (Mr. J. V. Tillett), for the defendant. In his particulars of claim the plaintiff set out that proceedings were taken against him at Quarter Sessions, beforo Judge Backhouse, for exhibiting the freak in question to the public. The goods wero detained, but no order was made against plaintiff by tlio presiding Judge. Subsequently plaintiff asked for the return of the body from the police, but it was refused, and plaintiff now brought an action for detenue, and what is termed in law the conversion by defendant of the article in question. Damages wero laid at £4OO. The defendant sot up the plea “that he was lawfully in possesion of the said baby then being dead, on behalf of the Crown, as the exhibit in the prosecution against the plaintiff for publicly exhibiting for gain the said baby to the manifest outrage of public decency, upon which prosecution plaintiff pleaded guilty. Plaintiff afterwards asked Judge Backhouse for an order directing the said baby to be handed over to him, but his Honor refused to make tlio order, and defendant thereupon by direction of the Attorney-General detained pending burial. Air. Piddington: A formal.defence of not guilty has been filed, under which the Crown raises the point that there is no property in a corpse. z His Honor: Is the two-headed babydead ?

Mr. Piddington: Yes. It.has been preserved in spirits for a considerable time, and the plaintiff used to exhibit it until stopped by indictment. He pleaded guilty' to the* charge, and, if I remember rightly, was released on his own recognisances. He .afterwards asked for a return of the double-headed baby, as being his property, but the Crown took up the position that there was no property in a dead body. His! Honor: I think that is so except in the case of a body held by executors, and possibly by a minister, for purposes of burial. As far as the trover court is concerned, it seems to me at the first blush that your contention is right. But, suppose some medical men in a hospital, or some professors in a university', had a corpse in their possession for scientific purposes, would they not have a property in .it, and if anyone took it out of their possession, could they not sue for recovery? ■ Air. Piddington: i submit not. His Honor: Have you any authority on the point as to possession. Air. Piddington: Yes; there are authorities showing that the possession is only for the purpose of burial. The Crown contends that the common law duty of a person in possession of a body is to bury it; but the police have not done so out of consideration for the plaintiff, as he had brought an action. Otherwise the body would have been buried. Executors cannot sell a body or give any title. His Honor: I believe that there is a case in 20 Chancery Division. Air. Piddington: Yes; Williams v. "Williams. Air. Curtis: I contended at the outset that this body is not a corpse in the ordinary sense. It is over 10 years old, and has been in the continous possession of the plaintiff, or his father for about 22 years. His Honor: Does it belong to the

family ? . Air. Curtis: I have evidence to show that it was put up for auction in Dunedin, and that is was bid for by all the representative doctors there. It was knocked down to the plaintiff’s father for something like £37. His Honor: Was it a case of malformation ? Air, Curtis: Yes. His Honor : I should think in that case' it was-the duty of the doctor to bury it at birth. • Mr. Curtis:, It was given to the doctor after birth, when it was discovered to be still born, and it remained in bis possession for a numbei of yea-rs. He subsequently died intestate and there was an auction of effects, and the plaintiff’s father

bought tho body of tho baby. He exhibited it in New Zealand, where there was a prosecution against him. On appeal, however, it was held that there was no common law offenco. His Honor: Not against public decency? Mr. Curtis: No; and the point lias never been raised here. The point is when a body ceases to be a corpse. Suppose a body or a skeleton of a human being was kept in the University mueum for the scientific or educational purposes, if a person broke into tho institution and feloniously took one of the exhibits away, could he not be prosecuted for lareency. His Honor: A corpso means a dead body of flesh, but as to skeletons, why you can buy them for the puiposo of teaching anatomy to students at the University. A dead body is not a chattel, and I cannot understand how, because a corpse is pie-

served, it is any the less a corpse. Mr. Curtis: X admit that that is a difficulty I have to face, anil if your Honor holds that view at the' end ol the case, it will settle the matter definitely. . His Honor: Not definitely, because you have the right of appeal. Mr. Curtis: Which ever way the case goes, there must, no doubt, be ■ an appeal. I argue that under the circumstances there is no indecency in the exhibition of this two-licaded baby. . . His Honor: X should think that it is a very bad thing for the public, and shows a very morbid taste. Mr. Curtis: Assuming it to bo au indecent exhibition, plaintiff is liable to prosecution if ho continues to exhibit it. But if ho desires to sell it to the British Museum or some kindred institution, ho would probabjy get a large sum for it. It is a valuable medical exhibit-, and the

plaintiff wants it, not for public exhibition, bub for salo. That being so, ho has a right to bring an action to recover it

Evidence was then called on behalf of the plaintiff", and at its close, His Honor, on the motion of Air. Piddington, granted a non-suit on the ground that ho was not satisfied that there was any such property in tlio exhibit ns entitled plaintilf to maintain nil action for dotenuo and trovor.