CO882-(2-3) — Page 312

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference

TILITICO. 882

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

2 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

20

(Nos. 67, 68, and 69.)

District Sergeant-Major J. T. Webb v. Dr. J. Tynck (Riche Bois).

Three informations:-Not certifying Register; not visiting regularly; making false entries,

Plea:-Guilty.

Mr. Cartel, sworn :-Administrator of Riche Bois. My opinion is that the Indian so hates the hospital that he will not stay there. I have had an. experience in other parts of the Colony where I have been a planter, and have seen many doctors' attendants on estate, and I have had some experience of Dr. Tyack's practice, and as to the matters charged to him to-day as to making false entries. I consider that all do much the same thing. I have had a long experience. The doctors frequently neglect visits for a certain time and then come and "reguliser" their visits. The inspectors ask questions it is true, but they generally have the good sense ("le bon esprit") to announce their visits beforehand, so that all can be put in order for their coming. It is always a week beforehand that they announce their visits, and the doctors always keep a-head of the inspector. He comes on the estate and stays an hour or two. He never comes without announcing his visit. I cannot give other reasons for the Indian's dislike of hospital than that they dislike the treatment and diet. They will not stay; rarely they stay the day, and none by night. They get a little saltz or oil and then depart. I can only oblige them to stay by marking them absent.

Cross-examined. Whenever I sent men to Dr. Tyack's house he took care of them. They were sent on sudden emergency for examination.

(Nos. 61 and 62.)

District Sergeant-Major J. T. Webb v. Dr. J. Tyack (Beau Bois).

Two informations :-Not certifying Register; not visiting regularly.

Plea:-Guilty.

Mr. Descroizilles, sworn :-I am son of the proprietor of Beau Bois. In my opinion the hospitals are useless, we tried to keep them there when the law first began, Dr. Tyack has not been but one died and afterwards all seemed to have an aversion.

regular, but I know of no instance more than one exceeding a month of absence. I think we could do without hospitals. When they are seriously ill we have them treated in their huts. We make no use of our hospital. We require doctors not hospitals. There are times when we have need of a doctor three or four times a week, other times only once or twice in six months.

among

(Nos. 87 and 88.)

District Sergeant-Major J. T. Webb v. Dr. J. Tyack (St. Avold).

Two informations:-Not certifying Register; not visiting regularly.

Plea:---Guilty.

Mr. Bour, sworn :-Proprietor of St. Avold. I have no knowledge of any custom doctors to sign the books for days when they have not visited. I have had such things done to the extent of two visits at a time.Dr. Tynck has not visited my estate regularly. I think it is necessary to have a “maison de repos," but not always an hospital, on an estate. The really sick man has his family ties, his religion, and his prejudices, which make him prefer to be at home, and they dislike the hospital. If one forced a man to stay in hospital, he would leave at the expiration of his engage- ment.

Cross-examined by Dr. Tyack.-Dr. Tynck receives some at his house. He has

A

21

always come when sent for. I send certain cases to the Poor Law hospital, as our infirmarian and means of caring may not be sufficient.

Dr. Tyack addresses the Court. In substance says that the case appears serious, but is only trifling.

The Ordinance is one only passed, and hastily also, because the Legislature wished to avoid the suspension of immigration. I have attended sick and seen many never entered on the books, and I thought that doing much that is not required I would be somewhat excused for other neglects.

Judgment reserved.

Judgment.

Under Ordinance No. 29 of 1865, Articles 16 and 17, you, Dr. Tyack, have been found guilty on your own confession in fourteen cases, Nos. 61, 65, 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 79, 97, 80, 81, 82, 84, and 87, for having failed to make and subscribe to the hospital registers of the following estates a certificate required by the stipendiary magistrate, and as provided by law, viz., Beaubois, Bel Air, Richebois, Colmar, St. Félix, Choisy, Fontenelle, Combo, Bel Ombre, Beauchamp, Chamouny, Constance, St. Avold, and La Forêt.

You have also, on your own confession, been found guilty in twelve cases Nos. 62, 64, 66, 69, 71, 73, 77, 78, 98, 99, 85, and 88, for failing and neglecting to visit the labourers during the time prescribed by law on the following estates, viz., Beaubois, La Forêt, Bel Air, Richebois, Colmar, St. Felix, Fontenelle, Combo, Constance, Bel Ombre, Choisy, and St. Avold estate.

You have also, on your own confession, been found guilty in four cases, Nos. 63, 67, 75, 86, for having made false entries and signed the same as to the dates and times of your visits on the following estates, viza La Forêt, Richebois, Choisy, and Constance.

In some of these cases I have heard the evidence of managers and others, with a view to arriving at a knowledge of the extent to which circumstances either aggravated or mitigated the nature of your offences.

the

With respect to the first class of charges, for having failed to certify as true and correct the registers of the hospitals you attended, I admit there is some force in your plea that your neglect in this respect but forms a part, and is a necessary consequence of your having committed the offences charged in the other two classes of informations. At the same time you must be aware that these certificates were required of you at a time when the full extent of your shortcomings was not known, and they were required of you as a means of discovering the true position of matters on all estates. The Ordinance No. 29 of 1865, by providing in Article 16 that every "register" said medical practitioner shall be bound on the requirement of the Stipendiary Magis-, trate or Inspecting Medical Officer of the district to verify by a certificate, evidently intended that that obligation should constitute the principal check and highest moral compulsion on the practitioner. And it has had its effect in this instance, as you have not only not ventured to sign any certificates, but have avowed that you could not truthfully or honourably do so in any instance. I am therefore inclined to regard this class of offences with more leniency, as you are about to be subjected to penalties for the others.

As to the second class of charges, where you are convicted of considerable neglect in your attendances on the hospitals, you have said nothing that any way excuses your violation of the law. I have heard in evidence that you do not even visit hospitals at all in many instances. You receive patients at the mill, or in the office, or even at your own house, and do not even give such attention as you do bestow in anything like a sufficient manner. You have prescribed and signed the book, and gone away. But it seems to me that a very different duty was contemplated by Ordinance. As hospital surgeon you appear to have performed few duties. It is truc hospitals are described as being little used, disliked by the Indian, and often entirely closed, yet it seems your manner of performing your duty has encouraged, even if it has not created, this state of things.

It has been urged by you also that, morally speaking, you have discharged your duty because no death or disaster is directly traceable to your neglect. You may make that assumption, but, in my opinion, it would be most rash to suppose, because the instances are not discoverable upon this inquiry, which has been directed to more general matters, that the natural consequence of the absence of medical care, or the great

[134]

G