Narrandera has had a variety of public scandals over the years, bringing some excitement to this quiet country town. This was the case in 1898 with a case of ‘medical misadventure’.
The main facts of the case were publicised in the Narrandera Argus on September 11 that year. It was extensively covered in the Argus but briefly summarised in an Argus author John Norton’s article in the Argus on that day.
The interesting thing about this historic article was the manner in which it was reported - there were obviously no restrictions in reporting in those days and the opinions of the author and the facts of the case left no stone unturned.
The author of the story John Norton would be envied today by many journalists fighting for the truth on behalf of their readers, but I wouldn’t like to be paying the bill for defamation insurance. Nevertheless it makes a good read.
It all began when a Mrs Pleming, the wife of a respectable storekeeper of Grong Grong, and the mother of four young children, the eldest being only nine years old (she herself being only 32 years of age), went into Narrandera with her husband.
As she complained of feeling unwell, it was arranged that she should remain in town for a time under the care of Dr Watt in a private hospital over which he exercised medical supervision.
Thirteen days later she developed 'peculiar symptoms ' which were said to be the concomitants of certain operations, Dr Watt deemed it advisable to summon another local medico, Dr Waugh who, seeing the critical condition of the woman, who was rapidly sinking owing to a frightful hemorrhage, recommended a course of treatment, which Dr Watt applied.
All efforts, however, to save the dying woman were to no avail, as she breathed her last 20 minutes after she was first seen by Dr Waugh, who left the place immediately after she died.
Dr Watt subsequently gave a certificate stating the form of death to be epileptiform seizure and brain anaemia.
Up to that stage there did not appear to be anything extraordinary about the case. But now mark the surrounding circumstances and the sequel.
Feeling dissatisfied, not to say suspicious, as to the true cause of his wife's sudden death, Mr Fleming demanded that a post mortem inquiry be held. There was no doubt that he had ample reasonable grounds for making this demand.
On the very day she died he had come into Narrandera to take his wife home as had been previously arranged. Barely two hours before she died he had called at the house where Dr Watt was attending her, but Dr Watt told him that Mrs Fleming was asleep and that it would be better if he would allow her to rest until he was leaving town.
Within the specified two hours Mr Pleming returned only to be told that his beloved wife, the mother of his four helpless little ones, was a corpse. Dumbfounded and distracted, he demanded to know precisely the cause of her so shockingly sudden death and discredited Dr Watt's version.
He went to Dr Waugh and asked him to verify or ratify Dr Watt's certificate; but Dr Waugh declined to do this; although, for reasons of professional etiquette, he did not feel justified, at that stage, in stating the grounds of his refusal.
It then transpired that the treatment followed upon Dr Waugh's advice was that usually followed in cases where an operation had been performed.
Rumour was rife in Narrandera to the effect that this operation was performed for the purpose of procuring an abortion.
Notwithstanding Dr Watt's certificate as to the cause of death, the Narrandera Argus announced it as being due to premature confinement.
“Is it any wonder then that the cruelly-bereaved husband should be suspicious, and determined to hate the mysterious manner of his young wife's death probed to the bottom?” asked the newspaper writer.
“No, not at all; the only wonder was that, in view of the sinister rumours afloat in the district, the local police did not themselves at the onset take steps to have an inquiry held,” he said.
As soon as he heard that Dr Waugh had refused to endorse Dr Watt’s certificate, Mr Pleming went to the police, who, in their turn, went to Dr Watt, who told them that he and Dr Waugh were in accord as to the cause of death so the police let the matter drop.
Not so the husband. Acting on the advice of some of the town’s leading residents, he posted off to Sydney to demand a post mortem to the Minister for Justice. But the Minister was out of town; the Under Secretary was away and the Chief Clerk, or somebody else in the Justice Department, told the distracted, heartbroken husband that there was nothing in it, and they had plenty of similar demands for enquiries, which were refused.
However this official condescended to write to Narrandera for more detailed information with the result that the Minister for Justice informed Mr Pleming that he could not see his way to order an inquiry until more facts justifying such an inquiry were forthcoming - or words to that effect.
That’s where the Argus writer Mr Norton brought his strong opinions into play.
“In the name of God, what further facts are required to warrant an inquiry in this most extraordinary case,” he asked.
“Here is a woman who suddenly dies under the care of a doctor who two hours before her death tells her husband that she is asleep, but that he can come and take her home at the end of two hours and when he goes to fetch her is told she is dead!
“Is not that in itself enough to warrant an inquiry? Then again, there is the fact that Dr Watt and Dr Waugh, who was called in 20 minutes before the woman died when she was, to all intents and purposes 'in extremis' - differing as to the cause of death.
“Was ever a post mortem examination and inquiry known to be refused before in a case where the doctors in attendance were known to be at variance as to the cause of death? Never.
“Besides, Dr Watt, according to the local police who interviewed him, virtually stands charged with having told a deliberate lie, when he stated, as a reason why no inquiry should be held, that Dr Waugh had agreed with him as to the cause of death as put forth in the certificate.
“Dr Waugh denies this and his prescribed treatment points to the conclusion that Mrs Pleming's death was due to a surgical operation. Who is right, and who is wrong ?
“If Dr Waugh is right, what comes of Dr Watt's certificate of death from 'epileptiform seizure and brain anemia? When doctors differ in cases of this kind, who shall decide but a Coroner's jury, or a Judge and jury trying a civil or criminal action for libel, brought by one or both of these reputable medicos?
“Talking of libel actions, must it not strike the public as something preposterously paltry and positively presumptuous that Dr Watt should threaten Mr Pleming with an action for slander, in which damages were laid at £2000, for simply seeking to have the sad and sickening mystery of his young wife's death satisfactorily cleared up by a thorough inquiry ?
“Undoubtedly such conduct on the part of any man towards another in the painful position in which Mr Pleming finds himself placed, must seem at once cruel and a bit too previous.
“Who the devil is this Dr Watt that he should seek to harass with threats of libel writs for slander the bereaved father of four helpless bairns, who simply seeks to ascertain, in a lawful way, the real cause of his wife's death while she was under Dr Watt's hands?
“This redoubtable doctor is altogether too smart; he should be the last man to resent inquiry into the cause of Mrs Pleming's sad death; certainly he should be scrupulously careful to do or say nothing that might even seem like a desire to block investigation.
“There are several potent reasons why Dr Watt should comport himself circumspectly in this matter. He would do well to remember that Mrs Pleming died suddenly - after being under his care a whole fortnight; that she died two hours after he had told her husband he could take her home; that he only called in Dr Waugh when she was already well advanced into the Valley of the Shadow of Death; and, last, but not least, that he (Dr Watt) either made a most flagrant mistake, or uttered a downright falsehood, when he told the police that Dr Waugh had agreed with him as to the cause of Mrs Pleming's death.
“These are matters which Dr Watt ought to bear in mind - they are matters which the deceased's husband is entitled to bring forward in support of his demand for an inquiry, even as they are facts or allegations which require refutation before the sinister suspicions surrounding this sad case can' be laid to rest.
“It is the word of the police and Dr Waugh against Dr Watt's. Will Dr Watt dare to say that the police and Dr Waugh are in a conspiracy with Pleming to slander and ruin him? Surely not.
“Then what's the meaning of Watt's writ against the wretched widower. Would it not be better for all parties concerned and more satisfactory to the public if Dr Watt, having nothing to fear, were to cordially join in the demand for an inquiry which would bring out the truth of Mrs Pleming's premature demise?
“Of course it would and the world would think much better of Dr Watt, if, instead of wrongfully attributing certain highly questionable professional opinions on a most delicate matter to a dissenting confrere, he were to come' out into the open and candidly court the frankest and fullest inquiry.
“Why does not Dr Watt do this? Is the question nine out of every ten sane persons will ask themselves.
“Meanwhile the matter has already been taken out of the hands of the Department of Justice and brought before the Premier at a special interview at which Mr Pleming was present. The Premier virtually made a promise to cause a full and searching inquiry to be promptly made. It remains to be seen how soon and in what manner that promise will be kept.”
