MATERNITY NURSE

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 6, 2 October 1926, Page 10

MATERNITY NURSE

COMMITS BREACH OF ACT FINE IMPOSED Dominion Special. Dunedin, October 1. A novel case, in Dunedin at least, came before Mr, H. W. Bundle, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court this morning, when Margaret Leggett was charged on two informations with having used her premises as a private hospital in breach of section 106 of the Hospital and Charitable Institutions Act, 1909, and without the authority of a license issued by the Minister. The prosecution was brought by the Health Department. Counsel for the defendant (Mr. J. M. Paterson) entered a plea of guilty, but said the defendant had no intention of committing Hie offence' and the commission was a pure accident. Section 106 of the 1900 Act made it an offence to have two or more patients at the same time in a maternity hospital that was unregistered. The defendant was a maternity nurse of the old school, and when the Act came into force she was informed by a doctor that it was not necessary. for her to register. She had intended giving up the place at the beginning of the year, but had not done so. Mr; Paterson pointed out that it looked as if the Act attempted to “regulate the courses of nature” as a maternity nurse was always faced with the possibility of having to take cases that came before and after the expected time and overlapping was difficult to obviate. Counsel contended that the Act was frequently violated by licensed homes. Several medical men were prepared to give evidence'as to the defendant’s qualifications, and Dr. Newlands was in court to state that the home had always been conducted in the best possible manner. Mr. Adams said that the prosecution did not dispute the defendant’s qualifications. There had been six connnements in the defendant’s place in six weeks, and although it was recognised that some latitude had to be allowed, the defendant should have communicated with the Health Department so that it could have exercised its supervision. Nurse Leggett had been warned three and a half years ago. The matter was treated as serious, and the Act provided for a fine of £5 a day for every day in which the breach continued. . r Mr. Paterson considered’ that it was a trivial case, and should be dismissed. The Magistrate said that lliere was no question that a breach of . the Act had been committed. It was obvious that a certain amount of latitude had to be allowed, but those in charge of unregistered homes had to be careful. In the present case there were two "-•tients in the house for two periods. The prosecution had admitted that Nurse Leggett, had conducted her place extremely well, but she had committed a distinct breach of the Act. Defendant was fined 7s. and court costs, and ordered to nav £3 3s. solicitor’s fee. An application for the suppression of the defendant’s name was refused by the Magistrate.