AN UNUSUAL CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 8 October 1920, Page 3

AN UNUSUAL CASE

QUESTION OF MEDICAL PROPRIETY(Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, October 8. \ n aftermath of a case prominently before the public some time ago, « revealed in an application to the Full Court to-day under th 0 Medical Practitioners Act, 1914, to have Drs FranWallace MaeKenzie and Henry Arthur Herbert Claridge, of Wellington removed from the roll of medical practitioners on the #ound that they were guilty of grave impropriety in a. professional fact bv being concerned with the abduction from her parents of a girl named Edith Kathleen Strangeman, aged 18 years and three months. Mr MacOaseey appeared for the Medical Board and Sir John Skerrett and Mr Fata- for Dr. McKenzie, Mr O’Leary for Hr Claridge, and Mr T. M. Wilford watched the case on behalf of Howard Nattrass, and Edith Strangeman. The presiding judges are Sir Bassett Edwards, Justice Chapman, and Justice Herdman. the case is proceeding. CONCERNING TWO DOCTORS. WELLINGTON, October 8. The Full Court to-day was engaged in hearing a rather unusual case in the shape of two motions by the Crown, representing the Medical Board under the Medical Practitioners Act, for orders removing Drs. F. W. MaeKenzie, and H. A. H. Claridge from the Register of Medical Practitioners in N.Z. on the grounds that they had committed grave impropriety in a professional respect. In Dr. MacKenzie’s case the complaint is that he conspired with Howard Nattrass to take Edith Kathleen Strangeman, being then eighteen years and three months of age, and a patient undejr his care, out of the custody of her parents, and deliver her over to Nattrass, and that he did, in pursuance of such design, by a deception induce her mother to take her to Nurse. Vickers’ private hospital in Brougham St. and in that, late at night, on 7th. of March, 1919, with the aid of Henry Arthur Herbert Cla/ridge, MaeKenzie took the girl from the hospital without the knowledge or consent of her parents or matron of the hospital, and delivered her to Nattrass. The case against Dr Claridge is in similar terms, except that it is alleged he was in consultation with Dr Mackenzie concerning the girl; that he conspired with Nattrass to take her out of the custody of her parents and assisted Dr MaeKenzie to deliver her over to Nattrass. In the Full Court Emma Amelia Strangeman, mother the girl, said she had no idea that her daughter was attended by Dr MaeKenzie until her daughter sent for him one day. He informed the witness that the girl was suffering from nasal trouble, and ordered her to the Brougham Street Hospital for an operation. She did not come home one night, and next day her parents discovered that she had gone to Hastings, whence she returned eight days later. Witness did not suspect the girl’s condition, but she found out later from Nattrass that Dr MacIvenzie had asked that Dr Claridge should examine tlie girl, which lie did in he»r mother’s presence, to see if she was fit for an operation. Dr MacKenzie later told witness to take her daughter to the hospital that night, which she did. Dr MaeKenzie about midnight told witness that her daughter had escaped from the hospital. Her husband went for tlie police.. Witness did not .see her daughter for 'more than a week- She disappeared again next day for three weeks and some weeks later went to Christchurch. She had not been home since. Witness denied she, or her huszand had asked the doctor to perform an operation to procure aliortion.