WILLESDEN CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 133, 7 June 1926, Page 9

WILLESDEN CASE.

CHARGES ALL DISMISSED.

DELAY IN TAKING ACTION.

COMMENT BY MAGISTRATE.

In delivering his reserved judgment this afternoon, and dismissing the rive charges laid recently by the Health Department against Nurse F. E. Fullerton-Whyte, licensee of the "Willesden" private hospital, Mr. F. X- Huntj S.M., made the following comment: "It is a great pity that the Department did not lay these informations earlier. The offences are alleged to have taken place between October 10 and 20, 1025, and almost six months were allowed to pass before the prosecutions Were launched. In the meantime, the two persons who would be primarily responsible if the offences were proved, namely, Miss Leone Whyte and Nurse Charlesworth, have apparently left the Dominion."

The defendant, Mrs. Fullerton-Whyte, is the licensee of two private hospitals in Auckland, one known as "Willesden," and the other as "Fencourt." The defendant herself managed Fencourt, and Willesden was managed, with the approval of the Health Department, by defendant' 3 stepdaughter, Miss Leone Whyte, a qualified nurse, Nurse Charlesworth, also a qualified nurse, a -probationer, and the usual domestic assistants. The hospitals are about half a mile apart.

Five informations 'were laid against the defendant. Two were for failing to keep or cause to be kept, in a proper manner, the temperature chaTts of two patients in Willesden, namely those of Mrs. Gumley and Mrs. Hamilton. With these the magistrate dealt first.

Mrs. Gumley's and Mrs. Hamilton's Cases. "The evidence in support of the charge in respect of Mrs. Gumley is that of Mrs. Gumley herself," said the magistrate. "She says that her temperature was not taken from October 10 to 15, while Dr. Paget says that after examining all the charts in the hospital he was satisfied from their general characteristics that they were not true. Against this evidence is that of Dr. Reed, who attended Mrs. Gumley, who ascertained the cause of her temperature of 102 degrees on the 19th, and gave her treatment to which she responded. On being shown the chart, which apparently records the temperature taken every day. Dr.' Reed says that it corresponds with what he found. It iB quite possible that after the lapse of time, Mrs. Gumley is mistaken when she says her temperature was not taken. The evidence is not strong enough to warrant a conviction, and the charge is dismissed."

In the case of Mrs. Leonora Hamilton, tbe magistrate said he could not convict. She was confined on October 16, and said that her temperature was taken "three times to her exact knowledge," The chart showed normal temperature every day, and there was no evidence that it had ever been other than normal. Like Mrß. Gumley, Mrs. Hamilton may have been mistaken, and considering her condition,- may have forgotten or may have besn. .unaware, fli other temperatures having been taken. Might Have Got a Conviction.

The magistrate then referred to another patient, Mrs. Strong, whose temperature was reported by Miss Leone Whyte to the Health Department as being 102.8 on October 18. Her chart did not show this temperature on that

date, said the magistrate, and had the Department prosecuted in this case, a conviction might have been recorded, as it was much stronger than either of the two cases brought. Since there was no prosecution, the defendant was not called on to answer it. A third charge that defendant did permit maternity patient, Mrs. Hamilton, to occupy a room while it was in occupation by a woman showing signs of morbidity, was withdrawn at the hearing, as the evidence showed that Mrs. Hamilton occupied another room. As an alternative to the above charge, the defendant was alleged to have permitted Mrs. Hamilton, on October 20, to use the equipment of a room used by a woman presenting symptoms of morbidity without first having such equipment disinfected. There was no evidence of this at aU, unless it was that on the 18th, Mrs. Hamilton's bedjacket was put on the other patient and returned to Mrs. Hamilton the next day. This charge was also dismissed. The Last Charge. "The last and most important charge, in that it relates to the defendant's own actions and not those of her employees, is that on October, 21, having been in attendance as nurse on cases of sepsis, to wit, those of Mrs. Strong and Mrs. Edwards, she did attend another maternity patient before the medical officer of health had certified that she might do so," continued the magistrate. "Willesden was closed on October 20, and she attended a maternity patient on the 21st at Fencourt. If she was in a' enr'ance as nurse at Willesden on patients suffering from sepsis she had broken rule 9 (c) of the Private Hospitals Regulations. She certainly gave Dr. Paget to understand that she had not been to Willesden since sepsis broke out there, and so he allowed her to carry on at Fencourt. Directly he heard that she had been there he prohibited her from further nursing. His order is dated October 23."

The question, said Mr. Hunt, was: "What is attendance as a nurse?" Evidence had been given by Mrs. Hamilton that defendant gave Mrs. Strong a glass of milk on the 18th, and later gave her a hypodermic injection. Witness also said that she saw defendant examine Mrs. Edwards, who was confined the night before, and Mrs. Edwards said she had been examined by defendant. If the statements were true the defendant did possibly break the regulations, but she denied it point blank. She said she used to give the anaesthetic on the confinements and did give a hypodermic injection, and that is all. The Misses Leonie Whyte and Charlcsworth - did all the nursing at Willesden. She was corroborated in her statement that she did not handle Mrs. Edwards, by a Mrs. McKay, whose confinement took place on October 12, and who was then much stronger, and, the magistrate thought, more reliable as a witness than the two women more recently confined. Not Proven. This was a penal statute. The onus Of proof was on the prosecution, and the magistrate was not satisfied that they had discharged it. The defendant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. It waa contended by the prosecution, added Mr. Hunt, that what is "attendance a 8 a nurse" was to be interpreted by the Health Department. He did not agree with this. If that had been intended bka regulation would have said m.