INDIAN DOCTOR CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 8 November 1929, Page 6

INDIAN DOCTOR CASE

(By Telegraph—Press Association)

AUCKLAND, November 7

At the trial of Doctor Share, the yoyng woman upon whom the assahlfc was alleged to have been committed gave evidence on the lines of tile Crown Prosecutor’s address. She said that she worked at- a- tailor s simp within a few doors of Share’s surgery. She ran a big needle into her thumb. Her injury was treated by Doctor Brock way, and next day she entered the adjoining room in the same building. Dr Share, after dressing her finger remarked, “ You are a very robust looking girl,” and suggested an examination, to which she agreed. During the examination she became suspicious. She could not see whether bis clothing was disarranged. Share had shown her some photographs, some of which were disgusting. She had been in bis room from 11.30 to 12.45. Share bad not charged her a fee for the examination. When she returned to her work, she complained of what had happened to a girl she worked with and that night she told her young man of Share’s actions. Subsequently a complaint was made to the police. When Mr Singer (for the defence) asked permission for the jury to inspect the accused’s' rooms, Mr Meredith stated that they had been alteypd since September 26th. The door would not open in the same way now.

' Air Singer- said that that cquld.be explained to the jury.

The jury inspected the rooms before Mr Singer commenced his cross-exam-ination.

An apprentice, who worked with the principal witness said that when the first witness returned from her visit to Dr Share, she was looking flushed and frightened. Site complained of .Dr Share’s conduct.

F. L. Armitage, bacteriologist at Auckland Hospital, detailed the results of a bacteriological examination of a garment submitted to him. Dr W. Gilmour, pathologist, gave corroborative evidence.

Detective -Sergeant Kelly said that, when interviewed, the accused denied haying shown the girl indecent photographs in his possession. He showed witness some photographs of an ordinary type, and on being further pressed, lie produced thirty-four move from an attache case. The accused, denied having shown these to his patient. Witness asked him how the woman could have described them if he had not shown them to her. Accused then became heated, and said that someone was “ trying to ; put one across hinn” So. far 'as the accused knew, the only person who knew lie had those indecent photographs was his wife. When arrested, the accused said: u lt is untrue, hut I will admit- some very bad photographs were found. I have been up against it for some time. If I sell my home a'nd leave the country,- will it make any difference P This will kill pjv wife arid son!.’’ • ■ r:

This evidence was corroborated by Detective Snedden and Detective Sergeant Doyle. Addressing the jury, Mr Singer described his client as a gentleman of culture and education and high attainments as a medical man. Because of his professional standing, the issue was one of the utmost gravity for him. An adverse verdict would 1 • mean 'lids utter, absolute, bland ruin, the deprivation of his livelihood; and his becoming an outcast from society and’Tus' profession. It was the glory of England's justice that the fact that a person was not of English race was never allowed to interfere with the course of that justice. Not only was accused 'an English subject, but also he was a New Zealander. Counsel said he would call evidence to show that two persons looked into the" room during the time the offence was alleged to have been committed. There was no proved offence, only inference and conjecture. Mr Singer intimated that he intended to call the accused as his first witness, and the Court adjourned until to-mor-

row. His Honour declined to allow the accused his libertv.