A COASTAL EPIDEMIC

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 153, 7 October 1910, Page 8

A COASTAL EPIDEMIC

AFTERMATH OF SCARLET FEVER. ENFORCING THE HEALTH ACT. As an outcome of the Tecent epidemic of scarletina in the Rahotu district, and the alleged disregard of the safety of the public by certain settlers who sent infected children to the schools, the Health Department yesterday proceeded against Arthur Frederick Chapman, of Rahotu, in the Magistrate's Court, charging him on six informtions with breaches, of'the Public Health Act,. 1908. Three of them were laid under section 25 of the Act. and charged defendant with having failed to send to the District Health Officer at Wellington notice that .three persons in his house on the Kahui road were suffering from scarlet fever, he having reasonable suspicion that the illness was scarlet fever. These informations were in respect to two of defendant's children, Herbert Ernest Chapman and Emma Mary Chapman, and a visitor to the house, Mrs. Caroline Mae'kie. The other three informations charged defendant with having allowed Herbert to wilfully expose himself in a public place —the road to the Rahotu school—without taking proper precautions against the spread of infection, on three occasions. Defendant pleaded not guilty . Mr. T. S. Weston, Crow r n Solicitor, appeared for the Public Health Department, and Mr. Quilliam for the defendant. Mr. Weston, in a lengthy opening, laid stress on the need for keeping infectious diseases under control, and the utter impossibility of doing so if the law were ignored. Tt was particularly important that there should be no laxity in a district where; the staple industry was tlie production of milk, which was a. prolific absorbent of disease germs. It would be shown that the boy Herbert, who had been suffering from scarlet fever, was driven in a, milk-cart, which mi.g'ht afterwar !s have been used in the conveyance of miilk.

Dr. Barron, of Opunake, testified that he had visited Chapman's on 27th May last, acting on instructions from the Parihaka Road Board. There was nothing in Herbert Chapman's condition to indicate that he had scarlet fever or was capable of imparting infection. In assuming that Herbert had had the disease he had depended on what Mrs. Chapman told him. There were slight after-effects with the girls Florence .Mrytle and Mary Emma, and Mrs. Mackie was peeling slightly on the face and neck. It would not be safe to assume that these people had had scarlet fever on May 13th or 15th merely because they were still peeling on the -27 th, for, although the peeling stage was usually of about three weeks' duration, there was nothing certain about it. To Mr. Quilliam: He had no personal knowledge that Herbert Chapman had had, scarlet. fever at all. ■ Arthur O'Brien, clerk to the Parihaka Road Board, gave evidence of the receipt of a notice from Chapman on 17th May to the effect that he had scarlet fever on his premises. He might have told Inspector Gardiner that he received the notice on 12th May. He could not say how long the notice had . lain at the post office, for .he lived at Opunake and visited Rahotu only twice weeklv. To Mr. Quilliam: The letter misrht have been lying at the Rahotu post office from' the 14th May, He had received about twelve notices re infectious diseases from medical men, but only three from householders. There had been no prosecution of householders other than this one. 'Mrs. Caroline Mackie, wife of George Mackie, a dairy factory manager at Rahotu, and iMr. Chapman's sister-in-law, said she nursed iMrs. Chapman from sth to Bth May. Witness was taken ill on the 14th, after she had gone home. Mr. Chapman took her back to has house, and Mrs. Chapman nursed her. She stayed at Chapman's for three weeks after May 14th, suffering from scarlet fever. Mary, Fred, Herbert, Percy and Myrtle Chapman were in the house. She stayed at Chapman's with a view of not spreading the infection, and because her husband was anxious that there should be no risk at the dairy factory. To Mr. Quilliam: When she went to the house on the sth she had no idea that there was scarlet fever there. Saw no children peeling between the sth and Bth, and saw no indication of fever there. On the 14th Herbert showed no signs of having suffered from the disease. After the 14th her housejiwas completely disinfected by the Health Department. To the Bench: She had no idea at the time that Mrs. Chapman ,, had scarlet fever, nor had thie lady herself any idea of it. Dr. E. A. Walker deposed that on 6th May Mr. Chapman brought his son Fred to him, suffering from intractable vomiting. Before proceeding with his evidence, Dr. Walker asked for a direction as to whether his conversation with his client should be repeated in Court for people might be chary of conversing freely with their medical advisers if their words were to be made public. His Worship said that what passed between the accused and his medical advised would have to 'be stated if Mr. Weston asked for it, and Mr. Quilliam remarked that if the Health Department were going to compel doctors to divulge every communication made to them it would be a 'foad look-out." Dr. Walker said .that he had questioned Mr. Chapman closely on May Gth, but had not been able to elicit from him anything that would make his sufficiently suspicious of scarlet fever to warrant his taking the precautionary steps provided under the Act. He gave Mr. Chapman directions as to the precautions to be taken in the event of scarlet fever developing, and told him what symptoms to watch for. Amongst other things he told him peeling was a sure sign of soarletina, and that upon the disease becoming manifest he must notify the authorities. There had been no cases of scarletina in the district antecedent to] this case. After this, he understood, there were innumerable cases, the children goin? to school when peeling, and i cases not notified at all. Saw the boy at i the New Plymouth hospital on the morn- j rng of 18th May, diagnosed the sase as. one of scarletina, and notified Mr. Chapman and the authorities.

To Mr. Quilliam: It was quite impossible to say 'how long the period of infection lasted. The move one read of this disease the more intlclinitc one had to be. The boy was brought to the hospital in a motor car. A person riding with him would be 'liable to infection, but was not so likely to catch the disease in the open air. The Magistrate rebuked Mr. Weston in his efforts to adduce evidence that was not strictly admissible or material, and upon Ml'. Weston complaining that he was met by objections to nearly every question he asked in his efforts to bring out the surrounding ■circumstances, Mr. Fitzherbert stated that the Court was concerned with whether or not on the days mentioned tJhe defendant failed to give requisite notice, and whether he allowed his children to appear in a public place. To Mr. Quilliam: As far as he could j learn from Mr. Chapman, there was nothing to warrant him or the defendant suspecting scarlet fever on May 6. It was, he thought, impossible for a person !to 'have scarlet fever and not peel. i Dr. J. P. Frengley, District Health Officer, gave evidence of the receipt of Chapman's notification of the disease on 14th May. It was informal, but to his mind sufficient, except that the Department expected a, notification in each individual case. He had little doubt that these people must have had scarlet fever on the 13th and ISfch Mav if they were peeling on the feet or hands on 27th May. His Worship said there was no evidence that they wre so peeling. Dr. Frenelev sa''. he was under the impression "that Dr. Walker's and 'Mr. Chapman's notifications of the disease reached his office simultaneously, but it was subsequently shown that Dr. Walker's was forwarded after 27th May by Mr. Gardiner, the Inspector, who had I obtained it from Mrs. Chapman at the I house.

Dr. Frengley, continuing, considered it sufficient compliance with the law if a householder gave notice of a case of scarlet fever on the day after his suspicion was aroused by notification from a doctor. Peeling was not a necessary symptom. In the absence of peeling a patient might not know ho was suffering from scarlet fever. Mr. P. B. Gardiner, inspector under the Public Health Act, said he had scon Mrs. Chapman, Mrs. Mackie and some children at Chapman's house on or about 20th May. He had a conversation with Mrs. Chapman (Mr. Quilliam: Was Mr. Chapman present? I insist upon knowing that. Mr. Weston: My leai'ned friend ."insists." There is no necessity to insist. Mr. Quilliam: Well, you insist on try- ' ing to get in evidence unfairly. Mr. Weston: I'm not. I asked a question, and I'm entitled to the .answer. I'll not be put down by you, Mr. Quilliam. His Worship may put me down, or correct me if I'm wrong. There's too much of this bombast altogether. Mr. Quilliam: Yes, there is. , iMr. Fitaherbert: Come, gentlemen, let us get on. -.. .. ■ " f I A little later, his Worship definitely ruled against the admission of certain evidence, saying that Mr. Weston knew, as well, and probably better than he did, that a conversation inimical to the accused and not conducted in his hearing was not evidence. He was sure Mr. Weston would not ihave taken it when he was District Court Judge. Mr. Gardiner put in a letter which he had received from t'ha defendant, complaining that the inspector had been told a lot of lies concerning him and his affairs, and alleging that Mr. Wilcox, a neighbor, was always acting in a manner inimical to his interests; complaining also that it was impossible for him to live if he were denied the right to send his milk to the factory and to go about his farm work, and to travel on the /oad between his homestead and a bush section. It was further stated in a letter that he had notified the schoolmaster of the illness in the house, and suggested tlheir being sent home, which was done. Mr. Quilliam, in opening the case for the defence, submitted that the prosecution was "making a mountain out of a molehill." There were six informations in all, and he regretted 'he had not an analytical index under which to classify them. Three informations wer< laid under section 25 of the Act, and charged the defendant with neglect to give the notification required by tile Act. He pointed out that a man 'having an outbreak of infectious disease in his house was in a parlous stute. If he neglected to notify the case, he rendered .himself liable to a fine of £5, but if he notified it he laid himself open to a heavier penalty for transmitting through the post an article which might spread the disease. If he wished to notify the disease he wrote out a notice on a piece of infected paper, licked the envelope and the stamp with an infected tongue, and post'ed: it in the village post office, thus committing a breach of section 36 of the Act and performing an act which Dr. Walker had told them was a frequert means of carrying disease, from one place to another. Apart from this, he proposed to show conclusively that the defendant, prior to May 13th, had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that the members of his household were suffering from an infectious disease. He submitted, too, that there was not a tittle of evidence to show that the boy Herbert Chapman had ever had scarlet fever, and that the informations based on his illness, or in which his case was concerned, should be dismissed. His Worship concurred, saving the evidence of Dr. Barron was rather to the contrary. Mr. Quilliam combatted the contention of the Crown that a separate notice was required of every case, and instanced the hardship that would be entailed on a householder if this view of the law were upheld. It was quite • unnecessary to notify each of a series of cases, for immediately upon a case beiii? notified the house was quarantined by the health officers, and the, quarantine* could not be removed until all danger of infection had passed. He called Arthur F. Chapman, the defendant, who deposed that he was a farmer, and had lived at Rahotu for 30 years. He had five children. iMrs. Mackie reached has house on Saturday, March 14. He posted the notices to the'local authority and the Department later on the same day. Until May 13th, when he received Dr. Walker's notice, he had no suspicion that an

i infectious disease existed in liis house. Ho wroto out both notices on the same | (Friday ) evening. He produced his diary I entry to prove that they were posted on the 14th. He had never seen a case of scarlet fever before. To Mr. Weston: Mrs. Chapman and some of the children had been ill prior to the 13th. He had not 'known they had scarlet fever. He had not called in a doctor to attend them, because they did not appear seriously ill. Kept the children from school because they were not well enough to go. There were no cases of scarlet fever in the neighborhood. so far as he was aware. He had thought the one notice quite sufficient to cover the whole .household. Dr. Walker had not told him that individual notices were necessary. From the 13th to 25th May he lived in the house with the child Alary Emma, who was ill. and he thought she might be ill of scarlet fever. He took Mrs. Mackie to his house so as to prevent the infection spreading to her house. ° Re-examined: There was a good deal of influenza in the district when he kept the children from school. . Mr. Weston, addressing the Court, laid stress on the importance of observing tlje provisions of the Act, in order to prevent the spread of a very dangerous disease, and he contended that the Statute provided for notification of each individual case. He hoped his Worship would uphold that view e in the public interest. His Worship said it was fairly clear that o.n the 13th the defendant had reason to believe that Mary Eirlma was suffering from an infectious disease, and on tliv Iwth that Mrs. Mac-kie was similarly attacked. He was not prepared to decide at once the point as to whether notification of e;v?h ini'i-vidual sufferer was needed, and he would give his decision on the point next Thursday. Mr. Weston, at Dr. Freng'ey's instance, intimated that in the event of the ease going against the defendant, the Department would -he satisfied with u conviction and a merely nominal penalty, each side paying its own costs. The action had been brought with a view of proclaiming that the provisions of the Public Health Act must be observe l , and with a further view of impressing upon the public the ncMssitv fo; immediately notifying cases of infectious disease. ■Mr. Quiliiam, on behalf of his client, expressed his gratification for the ina«- ■ nanimity of the Department. °