ABDUCTION CASE.

Hokitika Guardian, 13 October 1920, Page 3

ABDUCTION CASE.

j [per PRESS ASSOCIATION. —COPYRIGHT.] | WELLINGTON, Oct. 12 At tho hearing of the medical case Dr MacKenzie said Dr Claridge knew the medical aspect of the case, but j nothing else. Nattrass told him all ' about it. When they were all together, witness unfolded a proposition he had to make. He believed the first thing told them was that they were going to .; take her away. They lmd a long talk about it. Nattrass and Dr Claridge looked up a book of law to ascertain the legal position. The book was called the “Justices of the Peace Act.” (Laughter among learned Counsel). Witness said he was responsible for the scheme. He was the “brains” of it. Mr Skerrett:—Well, they might have got an ingenious inventor.” Sir Bassett Edwards: “And the others were responsible for the law.” Witness said he had considered the moral aspect later on. Witness denied having told Detective Rawle that Nattrass was not assised by him. As a matter of fact, he had done the whole thing himself, and did not need assistance. He had not mentioned tlie scheme to Dr Claridge till Nattrass came. This finished the evidence. Mr. Skerett said he was not prepared to take the responsibility of calling Miss Strangman, because it was only on the ground of giving testimony against her parents that her evidence was relevant. He had no objection to her being called and examined by an officer of the Court. Justice Edwards said that Counsel must take their own course. Mr Macassey said he was not prepared to call her. Mr Skerrett (Dr. MacKenzie’s counsel), then addressed the Court. He contended that the letters written by Nattrass and the girl were genuine letters and they went to show there was no conspiracy on the part of Dr MacKenzie, who was acting purely for the girl’s benefit. Counsel went on to show that the parents could not obtain a writ of Habeas, as the girl was the age of 18 years, and could live with whom she pleased. Counsel quoted many authorities in support. Mr O’Leary, Counsel on behalf of Dr Claridge, stated the case against his client, as in the case of Dr MacKenzie, was Dr Claridge’s own story . He submitted that on the night of the visit to the hospital, Dr Claridgo was caught at an unguarded moment, and did not have a full opportunity of considering what he was going into, and committed an error of judgment. lie acted on the spur of the moment. He contended what was done on the night of the abduction was not done in pursuit of his profession. Mr O’Leary said that his obligations to the patient had ended. The Bench said it dissented from this latter view, holding that Dr Claridge did enter the hospital in the capacity of a doctor. Mr Macassey for the Medical Board, submitted that Dr Claridge knew, when he examined the girl at mid-day on the day of the abduction, that she was going to be taken away. He said these doctors had come before the Court and had endeavonre to blacken the character of the girl’s parents by swearing that they approached them with a view to abortion being procured. Judgment was reserved.