DEATH OF A YOUNG WOMAN.
A death, surrounded with what cannot but be regarded as suspicious circumstances, occurred at Mrs Norman's private nursing home in Serpentine avenue at 9 p.m. on Monday. 7th inst. The name of deceased is Kathleen Matthewson, a single girl, whose parents, it is understood, reside at Pert Chalmers. From inquiries made it appears that on Thursday a young woman, who gave her name as "Kathleen Smith," called on Dr Church for the first time, and said she had just come from the Leviathan Hotel, and had not long before come to town from Mosgiel. It was obvious the girl was very ill, and she complained of great thirst. She admitted she was in trouble, and that for the last few weeks she had been taking very strong medicine of some kind. Dr Church questioned her as to whether anyone had performed an illegal operation, or had used instruments upon her, and she replied in the negative. Her temperature was then very high (l0ldeg), and the doctor ordered her to take to her bed, recommending her lo go to Mrs Norman's private nursing homo in Serpentine avenue on her refusing to go to the Hospital. The girl steadily refused to disclose the identity of the person who was responsible for her condition. An attempt was made several times to get her to disclose his identity before she died, but nothing would induce her to do so. The only admission she would make was that he had given her money to purchase the medicine. Dr Church saw her again soon after she went to Mrs Norman's, and gave directions as to how she was to be treated. but the following day she was no better. Her temperature became very high, and she was troubled with severe diarrhea. Questions as to bow her condition had been brought about were always answered in the same way — that she had taken medicine, but she declined to say where she got the drugs. On. the Saturday it was decided to call in further medical advice, and Dr Siederberg saw the girl, and, chloroform being administered, an examination was made. Extensive inflammation was discovered, and the usual antiseptic treatment, was immediately applied. The girl made a good recovery from the antiseptic, and seemed benefited by what had been done. The diarrhoea, however, continued. On the Monday a message was sent to the sufferer's parents at Port Chalmers, but they did not reach the place till too late. Mrs Norman states that when Miss Matthewson came to her she said she had been to Dr Church, and had told him she had had a mishap on Monday at Mosgiel, and that she wished to go to a comfortable home for a few days until she got better. Mrs Norman heard her say she had taken a quantity of medicine that had cost L3 15s, but she did not say where she got it. The doctors thought the girl's illness was due to the quantity of medicine she had taken, and that this, together with exhaustion, had caused her death. It is stated that one evening a man called at Mrs Norman's and asked if he could see Miss Matthewson, but was told he could not. He refused to give his name, but mentioned that he was married and had three children. He said further he would see Miss Matthewson through her trouble, and would pay all expenses. He is described merely as a tall man, and wore a slouch hat. The girl is said to have filled several situations as domestic servant since she left home some time back. The matter was reported to the police too late to have the girl's depositions taken, but diligent inquiry is being made into the case. A post mortem examination of the body was made on Wednesday.
THE INQUEST OPENED. An inquest on the body of Kathleen Mathewson, the young woman who died under peculiar circumstances at Mrs Norman's private hospital on Monday last, was commenced by Mr C. C. Graham, coroner, and a jury of six, of whom Mr D. C. Cameron was selected foreman, at the Morgue on Thursday afternoon. Chief Detective Herbert watched proceedings on behalf of the police.
Nicholas Mathewson, the first witness called, said he was a brother of deceased, and identified the body as that of his late sister, who was 25 years of age. Deceased had been living at home with her parents at Port Chalmers, and left there on the 18th of April, saving she was going to Mosgiel for a holiday. From then to the date of her death her family knew nothing of her whereabouts. The first intimation they received as to where she was was a massage from Mrs Norman on the 7th inst. that she was lying dangerously ill at her (Mrs Norman's) house in Serpentine avenue. Witness's mother went, next day to Mrs Norman's, and found deceased had died the night previous. Deceased was a general servant, and her people had no idea she was in ill-health. She had always been a strong, healthy girl.
The Foreman: Had she any friends at Mosgiel to whom you expected her to go for a holiday.
Witness: No. She had no friends there. She said she was going with another girl from Dunedin.
Chief Detective Herbert: We know there is no truth in that. We don't propose to introduce the other girl's name into the inquiry for the other girl's sake. It is obvious this inquiry cannot be completed to-day, and it can be adjourned to make further inquiries. Therefore it is a question whether you should take any further evidence to-day or leave it to a time we would know more about the history of the case. At present there is a good deal of mystery surrounding it. The girl's movements from the 18th of April to the week before her death will have to be traced by the police, and that may take more time than we anticipate — some little time, at any rate. Therefore I think it would be better to adjourn at the present stage.
The Coroner: Dr Church is here, and we might as well take his evidence. It has already been published in the papers. I may as well take Dr Church's evidence. It will obviate the necessity of his coming again.
Dr Church deposed that the deceased came to his house on Thursday afternoon before 4 o'clock. That was the 3rd of May. That was the first time he had seen her. She told him her name was Kathleen Smith, and that she had met with a mishap the previous Monday at Mosgiel — that was on the 30th of April. She said she had just come from the Leviathan Hotel, and had not long come into town by train. Witness saw she was very ill — flushed face, pallid lips — and she complained of an acute thirst. Witness took her temperature in the mouth, and the thermometer registered 101.2deg. Fahr. Witness remarked that she was too ill to be about, and that she ought to be, in bed. She said her home was at Port Chalmers. Witness then said she ought to be in the Hospital, and that she should go to the Hospital, but she absolutely refused lo go. She begged of witness to try and find a private home for her, and he recommended Mrs Norman's, No. 2 Serpentine avenue. Witness saw her again in the evening at Mrs Norman's, and took her temperature, which was 103deg. She was then in bed. Witness gave full directions to Mrs Norman as to antiseptic treatment, and saw his patient again next (Friday) morning, the 4th of May. He saw her again in the afternoon, and, finding her temperature was high again, said there must be a thorough examination under chloroform, and that he would require the services of another doctor. He accordingly got Dr Siedeberg on Saturday, May 5, and on an examination of the parts found extensive inflammation, particularly in one locality. He carried out the usual antiseptic treatment, removing all the foul tissue he could, and left instructions with Mrs Norman to carry out what was necessary.
The Coroner: Did you form any opinion as to how the inflammation was caused - whether by drugs or instruments?
Witness: Well, I don't see how drugs could do it
The Coroner: Then you consider it must have been caused by the use of instruments?
Witness: I think it must have been caused by treatment from without. I don't see how it could have been caused by drugs alone. Witness (continuing) said he saw the girl a few hours after the operation, and she had apparently rallied very well from the anesthetic, Her temperature was still high, and she had diarrhoea and vomiting, from which she had been suffering all along. When he first saw the girl during his first interview on the Thursday afternoon he suspected she had been in mischief or that someone had been tampering with her, and he put the question directly to her if an operation had been performed on her for the removal of her trouble, or if any instruments had been used, and she stoutly denied it. Her words were, "I have brought all this trouble on myself. I have been taking drugs for a long time." Witness questioned her further as to whether she knew what drugs she had been taking, and as to where she got them. She did not know what she had been taking, and she could not tell where she got the drug. She said the man who had got her into trouble had paid for it. After the examination under chloroform witness was so convinced the girl had been tampered with with an instrument that, he repeatedly asked her — in fact, every time he went to visit her — to admit she had been tampered with, but she stuck to her story. Witness also asked her directly to give him the name of the man, but she showed signs of irritation and annoyance, and would not give it. He asked Mrs Norman to try and get all the information she could from the girl when he was away, thinking she might, tell Mrs Norman when she would not tell him. On the Monday he had hopes the girl would recover, but in the afternoon there were signs of a collapse, and she gradually sunk, and died about 9 o'clock in the evening, when witness was present. In his opinion death was caused by collapse clue to septicaemia. He thought this was due to the introduction of septic material from without, probably introduced by an instrument. The operation had been complete, and practically nothing remained behind.
To Detective Herbert: She said her mishap occurred at the fourth month. She said she had been taking strong medicine for a long time, and that she had suffered horribly, and witness believed it. He doubted her statement that no one had tampered with her in the wav of operation. He did not believe it. He did not know until the Monday her name was Mathewson, and he then got Mrs Norman to send her maid to Port to the girl's parents. The girl returned without them. They did not come up till Tuesday morning. The symptoms the girl first showed wore quite in accord with what was discovered by the examination afterwards. Witness was present when Dr Roberts performed the post mortem, and his first diagnosis that an operation was performed by the use of instruments had been confirmed by what he then saw. The girl's condition when examined under chloroform was such as could not have been caused by drugs. Witness was quite sure of that. Deceased became unconscious after she showed signs of collapse. He had remarked to Mrs Norman that the girl was going to die, but it did not occur lo him to communicate with the police and have her dying depositions taken.
A Juryman: Did the patient know she was dying?
Witness: I don't think so. She never said so that I know of.
The Coroner: You did not inform her she was dying.
Witness: No, I did not.
The Foreman: Is Mrs Norman a thoroughly qualified nurse?
Witness: I have attended two patients there, and I have always been satisfied.
The Foreman: Do you think she had the necessary experience?
Witness: I think so.
Detective Herbert said Mr Mathewson desired him to mention that the reason why the girl's parents did not come up to see her the night they got the message was that the message came too late for them to catch a train.
Dr Church: Yes, it was late.
A Juryman: You did not get a sample of the medicine?
Witness: Oh, no.
The Foreman: When was the matter first reported to the police?
Witness replied that he went down and saw Inspector O'Brien on the Tuesday about 2 o'clock in the afternoon. He took the blame upon himself for not reporting it sooner, and was exceedingly sorry he hadn't reported it.
A Juryman: Does the doctor consider the instrument was clumsily used.
Witness: Whoever did it must have used an unclean instrument, because it must have introduced the poison.
To another Juryman: I think the person who did it was a fool, because they could surely have seen that the instrument was clean.
The Coroner observed that these were all the witnesses present. Inquiries were, at present, being made by the police in the direction of what had been disclosed in evidence, and, in any case, whatever witnesses they now examined, it would be necessary to have an adjournment. Dr Roberts was not present, probably because he had been under the impression he would not be wanted at this stage. It was decided to adjourn the further taking of evidence to the 18th inst., at 10.30 a.m., at the Magistrate's Court. -Otago Daily Times, 18/5/1906.
The Death of Kathleen Mathewson.
ILLEGAL INTERFERENCE ALLEGED.
Per United Press Association. DUNEDIN, June 1.
To-day the inquest was resumed on the body of Kathleen Mathewson, a single woman, who died under suspicious circumstances. Dr Emily Siedeberg, who was present while Dr Church examined the patient under chloroform in the house of Mrs Norman, the nurse, said Mrs Norman, in mentioning witness's fee, stated that it would be all right, as a man had promised to pay every thing. In witness’s opinion death was caused by septicaemia brought about by the presence of pus caused by a ruptured abscess. The condition could not have been caused by drugs. What was done was probably done by a persons not a skilled surgeon. What she saw was consistent with the fact that an instrument had been used.
Dr Roberts, who made the post mortem, said the conditions could only have arisen from septic interference from without. Where he had grave suspicion of criminal interference if a patient had become moribund, or was expected to die, he should have communicated with the police. He did not think he would do so where there was a chance of recovery, even though he knew an illegal operation had been performed. He would not deem it his duty to inform the police while there was hope for recovery. He would not give the name of any patient who went to a medical man in confidence, until death appeared probable.
The jury returned a verdict that the cause of death was septicaemia, the result of an illegal operation, but by whom performed there was not sufficient evidence to show. The jury also expressed regret that the Police had not been informed by the doctor or nurse of the circumstances of the case immediately after an examination had proved that an illegal operation had been performed. The mystery in connection with the man who called at the house while the girl was ill was not solved. Three young men who had been casual acquaintances of deceased, and from one of whom she tried to borrow money, were examined, but the nurse said none of them was the man who called. Edwin Vivian, one of these young men, was re-examined at his own request, with the object, of showing that he was not the girl's lover. He said she had made appointments with him by telephone on thirteen occasions, and failed to keep ten. He had met her accidentally seven times, and saw her home five times. On two occasions on which she failed to keep an appointment, he saw her in the street with a young man. -Southland Times, 2/6/1906.
DUNEDIN LETTER.
(Own Correspondent.)
The vices that thrive in big cities and grow fat on the folly of women and the lusts of men are blossoming to fruition in Dunedin. For years we have had the nucleus of a criminal element, as those whose business takes them to the Police Court know, but it is only occasionally that the community, as a whole, are made to realise that human depravity and human nastiness flourish in our midst. The sons and daughters of the founders of what municipal politicians term "our fair city" (I heard one mayor use these words three times in less than three minutes) and the God-fearing, pious men and women among us may well be amazed as they ponder the records that from time to time are made public through the Press.
What was termed the Tanna Hill mystery was sufficiently gruesome. A young girl found dead on the bleak hill side, and the partner in and cause of her sin hauled up weeks after a corpse from the Bay. But the incident and the lesson and the moral were soon forgotten. The sordid and despicable business continues unchecked. Callow, ignorant, dissipated boys and young men still seek after and easily find at dance parties, at street corners, at places of amusement, scores of presumably respectable girls who are willing to enter into conversation and to go here, there, and everywhere without thought or hindrance.
The miserable business to which I have previously referred, known as the Mathewson case, embodies the most pitiable and scandalous features of life as it is lived by many in Dunedin to-day. The story is one of deceit and evil-doing from its Alpha to its Omega, from the first silly laugh to the last moan, from the exuberance and passion of life to the coldness and horror of a solitary death. Purists may protest against the publicity that is given to these repellant doings, and empty-pated moralists may hold up their hands in shocked surprise and pass by on the other side; but they exist, they are passing under our eyes, they surround us night and day, they trench upon and enter into the very foundations of home and of Society, they may, at any hour, concern you or me, and from pulpit, platform, and Press the cry is heard, "What are you going to do about it?"
The Mathewson case made plain — not for the first time, only we had forgotten all about the others — that we have among us youths whose standard of decency and morality would do credit to a Hottentot, but with less excuse than the dark-skinned gentleman has. Their idea of an ideal life appears to be "having a good time" and the "good time" is what some folks would more accurately define as "a bad time": foul talk, foul deeds, cigarette smoking and drinking, and foul companions. In the present case they had not even a glimmer of that horror which is usually associated with these "gay doings." They lied and shuffled abominably.
But what about the girls? Girls are supposed to be better looked after, more carefully guarded, and surrounded with a few wholesome restraints that men can manage to dispense with. So much depends on the girls. They are the mothers of the race that is to be, and if these mothers are not lovely and pure and of good report, if the fountain head be defiled, what sort of a race are we to look for? anarchists, cranks, hooligans, satyrs, the spawn of lust, the creations of darkness! Well, this girl and her friends "larked" on the streets with boys, the church knew her not, picnic and camping out parties were visited, men in offices were called on, and there were all-night absences. A pretty beginning of an ugly end.
And the parents? Yes, what about the parents? I do not know. A parent who can go to bed and sleep in comfort, not knowing where her daughter is, is a sort, of parent one does not like to characterise. Nor do I care to say what I think of a father and a mother, who, knowing a daughter, of whose whereabouts they had been ignorant, is lying ill in Dunedin, put off their visit till the next morning. Perhaps the most just comment is that such cold-blooded indifference is the logical sequel of what has gone before. Why should there be any concern in sickness for a child whose welfare, when in health, had not been a matter of moment? The episode, as far as the "three jolly dogs," the girls and the parents are implicated, is a lurid comment, a pitiless exposure of how families are trained, and how parents regard them and their duties in the Christian city of Dunedin.
Of the other actors known and unknown in this typical drama but little need be said. I do not share the outcry, nor the coroner's strictures, against Dr Church — the medical attendant. I know that what was done by him was done from the best and kindest motives; I know there was neither profit nor glory in it for him, and the crime having been committed it was, perhaps, best in the interests of the victim, as long as there was hope, to keep her shame hidden. To call in a parcel of official busybodies would not have advanced justice one jot. The Police know as much now as they would have known had the poor girl's last moments been pestered with their queries. As for the man in the background, the man with the money, the man with the revolting tastes, the mm who degrades a noble passion and levels human love to lowest animalism, he is somewhere in Dunedin. Also, he is known to at least one person — perhaps more. Certainly one woman knows him. She has lied for him and spent money for him, and as she only went into her questionable business for the money there was, or is, in it, he will, now, have to pay pretty heavily. The poor fool — or worse — may keep out of the hands of the Police, but he cannot keep out of the hands of the woman. She has him safe, and blackmail in one form and another will make his wretched life as wretched as it deserves to be. Few men and few women will condemn the man or woman who yields to temptation, under stress of passion, but in these miserable Dunedin crimes there is nothing noble, or pitiful, or appealing; they stink in the nostrils. There is nothing clean, or lovable, or decent; they are nastiness unredeemed; nothing, that is, save the victim's loyalty to her chief wronger.
I might extend the story, but it is not necessary. I might repeat what ministers and doctors and my own observations have told me. I might tell of Sunday nonobservance among what are stupidly termed the "best families," of Sunday trading, of street loafing, of wretched homes. Civi bono? It is so easy to lay on the tar brush generously when you have borrowed the tar pot and are tarring the other fellow. Let it suffice to say that Dunedin, which ranks high compared with Wellington and Auckland, is not inspired at this hour with that Spartan rigor, simplicity and morality wherewith the men of old were animated.
I was interested in reading the polite and complimentary allusions to myself by your correspondent "Lawrence." It acts as a tonic to one's nerves to know that ones efforts to give information through the medium of harmless chaff have been so magnificently misapprehended. That is one inconvenience that arises from writing in parables. The following passage particularly pleased me: "We get practically nothing in Dunedin Notes from week to week but childish attempts at that form of cleverness which consists of unwholesome insinuations and levelling the abuse of ignorance at institutions and customs; which the majority of us hold sacred.'' The above is so courteously put that I will reward it with a story. A minister's daughter seeing the old gardener trimming the hedges went to him and said : "Thomas, you are not cutting that hedge straight." "Well, Miss," he said, "Bill Jenkins were by here this mornin' and he says to me: 'Tummas, thee baint cutting that hedge straight.' 'Thee bee'st a big liar, says I,' and then he went away." Will "Lawrence" please draw the moral with my compliments? Might I further suggest that instead of discussing art, of which he is obviously incompetent to speak, that he confine himself strictly to allegory. He will find it much cheaper than a trip to Dunedin. A grocer's almanac that is given away with the tea and sugar at Christmas will serve his comprehension admirably. -Tuapeka Times, 9/6/1906.
PASSING NOTES
Mr G. M. Thomson, being the sensible man we/had always supposed him, is able to assure the readers of the Daily Times that he did not say what the report of a Y.M.C.A. meeting had made him say, namely that "every right-thinking person in the community would regret that such details [the details of the Mathewson inquest] were published." What he did say was that "it was a pity such details HAD to be published" — which is a different thing and a sentiment to which we all, I should have supposed, might say Amen. But no! — we have since had a wiseacre writing to the Daily Times that what Mr Thomson disavows saying he himself would have said and does now say, namely, that press reports of such proceedings as the Mathewson inquest should be editorially bowdlerised, chastened down into the innocence of a Sunday School address, — lest we injure public morality and corrupt the mind of "the young person." I would like to ask this pious objector what he makes of his Bible, how he reconciles himself to the very unchastened reporting he finds there in the ease of certain Old Testament offenders. What about the interests of morality and "the young person"? Why should publicity he mischievous in the Mathewson case but not mischievous in the case of Uriah the Hittite? For my own part I affirm that in both cases and in all similar cases publicity is for the public good. Is it not for the public good and for the warning of "the young person" that you exhibit the wages of sin? Is it no gain to public justice when heartless offenders whom the law cannot reach are pilloried in the public prints? Moreover, when we have a case in which, as here, the police are so curiously at fault — unable to fill up or explain a gap of nine days, unable to trace the whence of the money which feed this person and that — there is a particular propriety in turning upon it the full searchlight of the press. -Otago Daily Times, 9/6/1906.
No comments:
Post a Comment