DR. MURPHY’S TESTIMONY IN MR. PROUDFOOT’S CASE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5142, 15 September 1877, Page 3

DR. MURPHY’S TESTIMONY IN MR. PROUDFOOT’S CASE.

Not to comment on the merits of a case while it is pending in a Court of Justice is a rule to which we always adhere, and, therefore we are not going to say anything as to the merits of the case against Mr. George Proudfoot, who ia charged with rape at Dunedin. But a certain Dr. Murphy figures in the case as a witness, of whom we think something should be said. This disciple of ZEsculapius was called upon by the parents of the girl on whom the offence was said to be committed to examine her. On the first occasion he expressed himself as not having been satisfied in his mind whether the offence had been committed or not, and told the mother and daughter to come again the next day. The next morning he went to the prosecutor’s house, and after examining the girl again, told the mother that proceedings ought to be stopped, as no rape had been committed. The next day, in conjunction with another doctor, a further examination was made, and the conclusion arrived at that the effence could not have been committed. In cross-examination, Dr. Murphy admitted that after he was aware that a criminal charge had been made against Mr. George Proudfoot, he was the medium of communication between a Mr. Mackay, a relative of Mr. Proudfoot's, to sett,tie the matter for a money consideration. The cross-exami-nation at this stage of tho proceedings is, according to the report in the Dunedin Evening Star, as follows:

“inspector Mallard: Has Mr. George Eroudfoot since these criminal proceedings have been instituted offered through you any hush money to Isabella Angus’s father? “Witness: Never. “Mr. Chapman: If we like we can hold the prosecution bounden to that answer. But as Dr. Murphy has been personally impeached we can offer no objection to his making an explanation if he desires to do so. “Inspector Mallard; I feel very reluctantly that I shall have to introduce Mr. Mackay’s name. Has Mr. Mackay through yon offered hush-money to the prosecutor? “Witness; Yes. “ Mr. Harris objected to the word ‘ hush’ as being a police word. “ Inspector Mallard : Now, doctor, how much?

“Witness ; He first said £SO or £IOO, and that I might go as far as £2OO in order to'stop the scandal.

“Inspector Mallard : Did you offer the money?

“Witness; Yes; on Thursday morning, at the junction of Rattray and Maolaggan streets. “ Inspector Mallard; Who was present? “ Witness: There was no one present at first besides myself and prosecutor. The prosecutor afterwards called Leves. Prosecutor did not accept the money. “ Inspector Mallard : Did you at that time know criminal proceedings had been taken? “ Witness: I saw by the paper that they had been.”

It appears to us highly creditable to the father that he did not accept the money, and very much the reverse of creditable to the party offering it. From the fact that the girl was in service it is to be presumed he was not a rich man, and the offer of £2O0 —for the “ doctor ” was instructed to go to that extent to “stop the scandal"—would certainly have tempted many a one to hush up the affair. With the question whether or not a case against the accused was made out we have nothing to do; but it is clear that the doctor was aware that criminal proceedings had been commenced when the tender of money was made. If this does' not amount to attempting to compound a felony, it certainly amounts to tampering with a witness, and few professional men, we hope, with any respect for themselves or the calling to which they belong, would act in such a manner. For the near relatives of the accused there may be some excuse for attempting to stop. proceedings, but for the medical man employed by the piosecutor to repeat, as he appears to have done, to third parties what the girl said to him, and what his opinion was of the case, and to consent with the accused’s friends to negotiate with the prosecutor to settle the matter for £SO, or if that was not enough to go as high as £2OO, was we cannot but think most unprofessional conduct, to characterise it by no harsher term.