Wellington Independent FRIDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1880. MR ROCKSTROW'S CASE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue 11, 8 October 1880, Page 2

Wellington Independent FRIDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1880. MR ROCKSTROW'S CASE.

; » Mr Ward aptly described this case on "Wednesday as both important and interesting, and from the verbatim report in this issue our readers will gather the whole of the particulars. It is not without diffidence we comment upon the case, as ignorant persons are apt to attribute difference of opinion upon such matters to personal feeling, and to regard the fairest expressions as the result of prejudice and bias where the writer and the subject have been in collision. Nevertheless, the thought that persons destitute of reasoning power may judge of us by. the motions of their own mind, need not deter us from exrpessing views that we have formed upon the case and its surroundings. In the first place, the attempt that has been made by the circulation of reports, and which found expression in Mr Eockstrow's cross-examination of one witness, to make it appear that the prosecution had been instigated by private individuals who had been working up the case for the police, is childish in the extreme. It is only a few days since a man named Lyster, who had been breaking the same law, was proceeded against in the Marton Court and fined £50, and at that trial Sub-Inspector Goodall stated he had received instructions to proceed against all unregistered persons who were practising as medical men. It would be just as wise to attribute the prosecution of the man Lyster to private influence in Foxton, as to say Mr Eockstrow was prosecuted because of wheels set in motion in this township. The simple fact is, that in prosecuting him, the police were only carrying out a general instruction, which we hope to learn has been made to apply to the whole Colony, and not to this Coast mere'y. As to the conduct of the case, we think it was done in a manner creditable to all parties. There was an evident desire to lay aside all feeling and to consider the case upon its merits, both Sub-Inspector Goodall and the defendant showing a willingness to meet each other as far as possible. To Mr Ward, who held the reins, and with great skill put on the brake when he noticed a disposition to " cut up," we must award a word ef praise. The result of his excellent management is, that no illfeeling has been caused, and while opinions differ as to the heaviness or otherwise of the punishment, there is a tendency by both Mr Eockstrow's sympathisers and opponents to let the matter rest. The case itself is a simple one. The defendant has for a great number of years aoted in the colony as a medical practicioner, though not legally quali , fied by registration. He has held many Government appointments, the authorities being fully, aware of his non-registration. As a private practi tioner he has given general satisfaction, and had he refrained from mixing in politics and devoted himself simrjjj? • to the practice of ths healing, afff it is extremely probable - there would have been nq-w-'/m in this district for another .practitioner The offence with which he was charged on \Ved "nesday was wilfully and fal-ely uains? the title of doctor of medicine. This the defendant denied. The evidence for the prosecution, however, showed that the defendaut had taken and used the name of " dootoi 1 ," first b> erecting a board with his name upon it, and secondly by attaching his name to an advertisement as "Dr Rockstrow." The next question was, what kind of doctor was he ? The police proved by evidence that the defendant acted as a medical man, that he received payment for his attendance, and that within the last six months he had actually entered himself in the register of deaths as a medical attendant upon a relative. This proof, in conjunction with tho fact that be had styled himself " doctor," was quite sufficient to show by implication that without any legal right the defendant had used the title doctor as meaning a doctor of medicine, and that in that light the public were moat likely to regard it. We therefore agree with the Bench . that the charge was proved.

The penalty which was inflicted was, we think, excessive, consider-

inu tUe/aet* traduced by the defend aia|;. §T to .4he Government having taken^ advantage of his sevvices, and als-V the length of time he has pjjr* sued unmolested tho practice of medicine in thi3 district* The highest peual y that can be inflicted upon the lying rascal who '* puflk " himself in the pap&rß as a*- thoroughly* . qualified medical mau is only £50, and to inflict one half that, sum iv the case of Mr Llockstww, which has i so very many extenuating circumstances, strikes us as making the punishment greater thanifhe offence. We presume the Bench acted upon a statement contained in the judgment. In that My Ward said : — "In our opinion it is the intention of the law that none but properly-qualified men should be allowed to practice." Acting upon that impression the Benchappear to have taken cognisance of Mr Roekstrow'a implied statement that he intended'tD continue to practice, and fixed a -heavy penalty to " mark the offence." We have looked carefully through the Act, and can find nothing referring to the question of " practice " at all. If it is the intention of the law that none but registered persons should practice in medicine that intention is certainly not stated. The Act is clear enough on this, that no man may do anything to lead the public to suppose he is registered when he is not ; but on the matter of practice it is silent. We are inclined to think the Act means this : If any man chooses to run the risk of a charge of manslaughter by practising in medicine he may so practice } and if the public choose to engage' a man as a doctor who is not legally qualified they may do so ; but for the security of the public, to prevent them being gulled by : impostors, no man who is not registered may use any title ornameimplying he is legally qualified. It may be said that employing the title "doctor" does not imply registration. We answer, that depends upon circumstances- If, for example, a lay preacher who had been known all his life as a farmer called himself [ a " Rev.," people would smile at his action^ but take no notice of ifc ; but a man who is suppoited by the church and who devote 9 his life to its work, is supposed to be a person entitled to the prefix mebtioned. Upon the same ground, if a play actor, or a barber, calls himself "Dr," peoplo take no -notice, of it, knowing what he really is ; but if a man who devotes his life to th« practice of medicine, and who gains his livelihood by it, calls himself *' Dr.*' So-and-SOi the public naturally conclude, unless otherwise informed, that he is in every way qualified to assume that title. It is at this point Mr Uockstrow comes within reach of the law, and it was in this way he was found guilty of the charge pre terred against him on Wednesday. Our firm conviction is that had he been careful to avoid using the woid " Dr" himself, and avoided returning himsqlf in a register as: a " medical attendant,'? he. cimld ; have snapped his fingers at the police. We may be wrong in this. The law is a sti-ange thing, and possibly the implication contained in the fact that a man prac tises as a doctor may be regarded «is a pretence that he is one. Still, lookiug at the matter from a layman's point of view, we believe there is nothing in the law to prevent Mr Rockstvow from practising, always provided he in no way assumes the title of either a doctor or a surgeon. The real hardship in this case is found in "the atftlpntof the (Sroverhment, which has ~ {or many years knowingly employediMr Ro.ckstrow r s services as though he had been registered, thus breaking one of the laws of the country, and placing him all the time in c false position. With this, however, the Bench could not deal. If the Government break the law, that is no reason why a Magistrate should shut. his eyes to the duty of maintaining it inviolate; arid if even npon the request of the Government a man accepts a false position,; that^s no reason why the majesty of the law itself should not be -vindicated. We feel, nevertheless, that the Court migki - legitimately have considered "the fact that the- Government had partly assisted in drafting Mr Rockstrow into the false position he held, and have modified the fine -accordingly, adding a caution.