HAMILTON MYSTERY.

Taranaki Daily News, 14 June 1921, Page 5

HAMILTON MYSTERY.

DEATH OF C. R. SMALLFTELJfr EXPERT MEDICAL EVIDENCE. INQUIRY STILL UNFINISHED. ' ' I By Telegraph.—Press Association. Hamilton, Last Night. The adjourned inquest concerning the death of Cecil Robert Smallfield, whose body was found in the Waikato river recently, was resumed this afternoon. Dr. McClaurin, Dominion Analyst, recalled, said he had written since to the coroner giving the result of certain investigations, stating that in certain circumstances minute quantities of carbolic acid were produced in a dead body during the process of putrefaction. He quoted Berthelot in support of this statement. Witness gave references of authorities from which he had obtained new facts. He had not found any authority who declared that carbolic acid formed in a body in large amounts after death. The last word had not been said on this subject, however, and it was known for some time that certain bacilli produced carbolic acid, but in small quantities. It was also known that small quantities of phenol (or carbolic acid) wore produced during putrefaction after death, and was probably due to the same bacilli which produced it during life. If this baccilus continued work during life it would probably continue after death. It was probable there was bacillus in New Zealand food which was necessary for the production of the particular bacilli that formed the carbolic present in the body jn question. Berthelot did not say the human body was the best media for the production of carbolic acid in the organs. He examined enough tyrosin to produce carbolic acid.

The only case in his experience where he found carbolic acid produced in a putrefying body after death was a case of a dog, but he could not say whether the carbolic acid found in the. dog was due to putrefaction or whether the carbolic was given to the dog. Berthelot only found the bacillus in cases where the subjects suffered from intestinal trouble. He. would not say a person who had the appendix removed nine years ago would suffer- from intestinal trouble. He would say a person would have suffered from intestinal trouble Where there were signs of inflammation in the intestines., The latter report to the coroner was not entirely speculative. He had not found evhdence which proved that more than small amounts could be formed. Berthelot was a man of some standing in the profession. Berthelot had said that further investigation was necessary in order to prove that bacillus could not exist in the bodies of healthy persons. Hugh Douglas, surgeon, said that when he was superintendent of the Waikato hospital in 1912 he removed the appendix from a patient named Cecil Robert Smallfield. An appendix once removed did not grow again. Assuming Dr. Hector said he had examined the %ame man and found an appendix ho would be making a mistake. An appendicitis scar would always remain and on a body buried on the date mentioned and exhumed later it would be possible to recognise it. After eight years’ the scar of an appendicitis operation would have grown fainter, and unless it was looked for closely it might escape observation, especially on a body immersed in water. Ruston Cranwell, dentist, said he knew deceased and 'had treated him professionally. He gave details of a tooth missing. ” Dr. Pinfold’s description of the top set of the body examined wa> correct. Witness had seen Smallfield shortly before his dea?h, when he was quite normal and was not depressed. Sergt. Edwards said he had made inquiries from chemists in the Auckland province but found no record of the saje of carbolic to deceased. Constable Dixon said he recognised the body taken from the river as that of Smallfield, whom he knew well. Charles Ligimer, deceased’s father-in-law, corroborated. Mr. Gillies asked for the re-exhuma-tion of the body to settle the matter of identification. Mr. Osler objected. He said the evidence was sufficient. . The inquest was adjourned to allow the re-call of Dr. Pinfold, who made the post-mortem.