NOT GUILTY ON MAJOR CHARGE

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 259, 2 August 1928, Page 11

NOT GUILTY ON MAJOR CHARGE

KOERBIN TRIAL ENDED V7IFE CONVICTED ON SECOND COUNT SENTENCE TO BE PASSED ON FRIDAY The Supreme Court was again crowded yesterday, when the trial of Marion Koerbin, a married woman, aged 43, who was charged with attempting to murder her husband, Herbert Koerbin, at Wellington on June 26 by poisoning his food, was continued. Accused was further charged with administering a certain poison (barium carbonate) with intent to injure or annoy. The case was heard before Mr. Justice Sim and a jury of twelve, of which Mr. C. Mack was foreman. The case for the Crown was conducted by the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. I*. S. K. Macassey). while Mr. A. B. Sievwright appeared for the accused. Detective's Evidence. Detective-Sergeant Holmes stated that he visited the Koerbins' house in Austin Street, in company with Detective-Ser-geant Thompson, and from the diningroom saw accused pour a fluid into porridge. She then gave a plate of the porridge to her son, Ao proceeded with it in the direction of his father's room. Witness took the plate of porridge from the boy, and handed it to Detective-Sergeant Thompson. He then searched the house, after which accused made a statement in which she denied putting either powdered glass or oxalic acid in her husband's food. Site admitted having purchased rat poison at a grocer’s shop in Courtenay /Place. Mr. Macassey: In her conversations with you did she appear to exhibit any signs of mental trouble?—“No, none whatever. I gathered that she regarded her husband as a very mean man. He had promised her a trip to the Old Country, but when he got property he had disposed of it again, and the trip was put off. She informed me that she received over £s'a week, and that her husband's meanness was the cause of all the trouble.” Some Questions. Mr. Sievwright: You told us you had a search warrant for the house in Austin Street? —“Yes.” Did you search Mr. Koerbin's rooms? —“No, I was not in Koerbin's bedroom that day.” You had two signed statements from accused; the other evidence was merely a question of your memory after you got back to the police station?—“Yes, but the conversations were fresh in my memory.” Where was Mr. Koerbin when you made a search of the house? —“In his bedroom.” Did you make any search of his room for rat poison? —“No.” Detective-Sergeant J. Thompson corroborated the evidence of the previous witness regarding the search of the premises in Austin Street. He had only spoken to accused on two occasions, when he took the bottle from her apron pocket, and later when she told witness that her husband was rolling in wealth. When asked what she thought her husband was worth she replied, "Oh, well over £50,000.” What an Analysis Revealed.

Dr. J. S. Maclaurin, Dominion Analyst,, submitted a report upon the examination he had made of the exhibits which had been submitted to him by Detectives Holmes ami Thompson. The total weight of barium carbonate fount, in the exhibits was 96.6 grains. ■ In reply to Mr. Macassey, witness said that authorities held that. 100 grains would prove fatal, but a case had been cited where 60 grains had caused death. The effect of ground glass would be an irritant poison. Authorities were divided in opinion as to the effect of ground glass upon the human system; some held that it would only prove fatal in certain circumstances, and others that it was very | dangerous. Mr. Sievwright pointed out that the | authorities showed that one European j scientist had taken as much as. 119 grains of barinin carbonate within -4 hours without ill effects. Dr. Maclaurin said that the maximum dose was laid down at three grains, or nine grains in 24 hours. Mr. Sievwright pointed out that in the work from which Dr. Maclaurin had quoted, barium carbonate was listed as a drug, and not as a poison. His Honour: You cannot differentiate between a drug and a poison. Strychnine is listed as a drug, but it is a poison. Caso for the Defence, Mr. Sievwright, in addressing the Court, said that there were two charges against accused: firstly, attempted murder, and, secondly, witli administering a poison calculated to injure or annoy. It had been indicated that the parties were not m good terms. Accused would tell them that she was becoming distracted, and intended to do something which would cause her 'nusband to cease the lino of action he was following. Her attitude towards her husband was more in the nature of a gesture. This is what had caused her to purchase the two tins of rat poison. She would tell them that she.knew that her • husband searched 'her rbom dally, and her object in placing the rat poison in her room was that her husband would find it, and approach her for a settlement of their differences. At no stage was Koerbin's life in danger. Marion Koerbin, the accused, then entered the box, and said it was untrue Hint she had always been discontented, and 'had coveted her husband’s wealth. When first married her husband allowed her no money, Imt later allowed her £5 10s. per week. I er husband had stated that she had got the better ot him In Court, but he would have the best of matters at home. His Honour: The bigger the brute you make t’iie husband, Mr. Sievwright, the more reason there would bo for the. wife desiring to poison him. Unless this is your line of defence, I don’t see that there is anything to be gained by pursuing this line of evidence. . Proceeding, accused stated that friends had said to her husband, “Why don’t you give that woman a dose of rat poison, or hit her on t’he head witli a hammer.' Wilness had then purchased a tin of rat poison, and left it where her husband could see it. She liad no Intention of administering it to her husband. There was a sentence on the label on the tin containing the rat poison which stated, "This mixture is not deadly.” and witness understood from tins that it was not very harmful to human life. Witness knew that her husband used to watch her movements, and on on« occasion when lie was looking through the slide site purposely let him see her put some rat poison in l|is porridge She only did this on two occasions, and had done it deliberately witli the hope that it would force her husband to seek a reconciliation. , ~ . His Honour: The jury can decide for what purpose the material was put in the ' Continuing, accused said she had never put any ground glass in her husband s food at any time. . His Honour: Powdered glass is not the kind of thing a woman usually keeps tu her house. .... Accused said that she laid no intention of injuring her husband in any way, and believed that even if lie had eaten the rat poison ;t would not do him a great deal of harm. In reply to Mr. Maciisscy. accused stated that she had bought the rat poison merely to frighten her husband. . Why, then, did you drop the tin in the dustbin nt Courtenay Place'.'—“l did not want him to know that I had bought two tins." ~ , „ .... „ Did you powder the glass.'— les. What for?—"I thought it might frighten him off.” , ~ , , . When did you powder the glass?— A few months ago." You wanted him to believe then that you were going to use the glass in his food?— When the police came to the house on June 26, you admitted that yon had put poison in your husband’s porridge?—“Yes; on two occasions only.” What do you think the effect would have been had your husband taken the food yon gave him?—“l consider it would be quite harmless.”. ... Would you give it to your children .'— "Certainly not. I did not think it would harm an individual.” Did you inquire what effect the rat poison would have when you bought it?--"No; I noticed the label said, ‘This poison is not deadly, and can be handled without Do you remember saying to Detective

Holmes, “I will tell you all about it ?— "No - Detective Holmes said to me, II you tell us'all about it, It will be tlie better for yourself; if you help us wc will help °Why did you not tell the detectives that you liad put tlie rat poison into your husband's food simply to frighten him. “Why should I tell the detectives? If vour husband was objectionable, wbj did you not leave.the house?—“Because 1 had two'children.” , What do you consider your husband was worth ?—“£50,000.” n.int- tint His Honour: Do you really think ttiat he is worth £50,000? He states that be ~ Well, lie has told me that he gets over £lOO a week from properties he Macassey: Instead of leaving the house, you preferred to stay on and po so your husband in order to get his montj. Addresses to the Jury. In bis address to tlie jury, Mr. Sievwrirht said that he was certain that tlitj would have no hesitancy In charge of attempted murder T etc mi„bt be graver consideration in the seconu charge of attempting to administer poison witli attempt to injure or , 1 was no evidence to , t . hat P Mrs ever administered to Koerbin, oi that Mts. Koerbin ever did anything with intent to injure or annoy her husband. have been preferable if Mrs. Koerbin had taken action to secure a separation, but instead of tills she had desired a coinplotL reconciliation. There lla . (1 , n !’ ee . l ’ n °£ U tl m secretive about Mrs. Koerbin s use ot tne rat poison, and her actions certn ln '> ]*} not bear the stamp of guilt. 1^ acrl ”’{ must have known what was going ou ’ had lie approached his wife as a reasonable man would have done all the trouble would have been avoided. Mrs. Koerbin s actions were not those of a suilty woman, and he maintained she was entitled to . a verdict of not guilty. .moinrml Mr. Macassey, for the Crown, ( l ecl , a, 2' t ‘ that tlie defence was one ot the most extraordinary he had over Heard .put forward Tlie effect of putting poison >njo 'let b m band’s food would liavo . tlie ., cflcc L o l f .J,?i tlier estranging tlie parties than of >rl“R inc about a reconciliation. She had been found in possession of barium carbonate and powdered glass, and In. asked ivliat were tiiosc two commodities tor. When confronted by tlie police accused denied having any poison in her possession. His Honour Sums Up. In summing up, His Honour said that accused should not be convicted on both counts. It would only be necessary to proceed ou the second count if she wc r o found not guilty on tlie first charge. Die Crown contended that accused wanted to got rid of her husband, and Mrs. Koerbin admitted that she had on two occasions put poison into her husband s food. n s Honour reviewed tlie evidence at lengin, specially drawing attention to the analysis made by the Dominion analyst from samples of food prepared by accused. it they accepted the evidence of Koerbin, Um iurv must come to tlie conclusion that accused must have liad some evil I>n>'l>. in mind in continuing Io put these loreign materials into her husband's lood. t't course, there was tlie suggestion that Koerbin may have placed tlie poison in tlie food himself. No fewer than tin samples of- food submitted for analysis contained barium carbonate in varying quantities. It had been put forward nj counsel for accused that tills was a gesture of reconciliation. There liad been many gestures (liroughout history, but surciv to put rat poison in hia food was tlie most extraordinary gesture winch baa ever been made by a wife to her husband. Apparently Ihe wife had been hav ng a little comedy in tlie kitchen, Imt J’ 0 ' 1 ' 1 ; down it meant Hint accused.was not. onl) wasting good porridge but good rat as well. However, it was for the jn.' (o say whether this woman had atfemphu to murder her husband by poisoning ins food.

Guilty on Second Count. Tlie iurv retired at 4.5 p.m., ami returned 'at 1.5(1 with n verdict of imt guilty on tlie first count, Imt. guilty on tlm second count, with a strong recommendation to His Honour remanded the prisoner until 10 o’clock on Friday morning for sentence.