THE ALBRECHT CASE

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 155, 28 December 1918, Page 8

THE ALBRECHT CASE

INQUEST ON THE VICTIM

MOTHER STRUCK BY HER SON.

The inquiry into the tragic circumstances of the death of Grace Albrecht at the Wellington Hospital on Monday afternoon was held by Mr. W. G. Eiddell, 8.M., this morning. A son of the deceased, Thomas Albrecht, it will be remembered, was remanded by Mr. F. V Frazer, S.M., on Thursday at the Magistrate's Court to appear on 3rd January on a charge of having assaulted his mother in such a muiner as to cause her death. Accused was present at the inquiry this morning. Inspector Marsack appeared for the police. i . 4 Dr W Kington Fyffe, who made a post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased, stated that death had resulted from a fracture of the spinal column at the fourth vertebra, which could only have been caused by direct violence. Dr NT Temple Perkins* said he was called to see deceased at her residence, 47, Wright-street, on the morning of sth December She was lying in bed in severe pain, and witness found that there were bruises on the right side of the head and on the right arm, and that the head and arm were swollen. She would riot allow witness to move her on account of: the severe pain. A second visit was paid two days later, and as the pain had increased witness advised the der ceased-to go to the Hospital. She ap- :' peared unwilling, to do so. The husband of 'the deceased, Gustaye Carl Julius Albrecht, storeman, said that the deceased was 60 years of age, and had enjoyed fairly good health. His son Thomas lived with,him and deceased. On 4th , December witness and deceased were having tea; when the son came in -very drunk. He first objected to what had been provided for lunch in very objectionable terms, and witness told him to sit down. A few minutes later he made an obscene remark about the tea, and a son-in-law of witness, Walter Newell, remonstrated with .accused for using such disgusting language. Accused took' off his coat to fight Newell, but was told to sit down. Deceased was then standing against the j table, when the son walked over to her, Ranged the table with his fist, at the same time making x use of ■. further obscene language, and struck her on the face with his right arm, with the result that she' either fell back or sat back on a couch. Witness sawaccueed strike deceased again on the face with his fist, and he then left the , room. Witness Eicked' up a piece of wood and! made for is son, whom he struck several times on the head. He then went to call the police. ; „ : ' Walter Newell, a driver in the employ of the City Council and'a son-in-law.of the deceased, gave corroborative evidence as to the quarrel over the food offered to the accused. As far as witness saw, the deceased was struck once by accused with his open hand. After his father-in-law had left the house, witness and deceased, attended to the wound; oh accused's head caused by his father striking him with the piece of wood, and witness then went outside, leaving deceased and accused in the kitchen to. gether He heard deceased call out, an| on re-entering the room found her lying on the floor A chair had been upset, and there was blood on the floor, which witness believed came from the wound on accused's head, but none on deceased. Witness carried deceased to her. bed, and her only remark was that she was paralysed. ' ' . ■ ' ; , Dr W Fitzgerald, house surgeon at the Wellington Hospital, said that the deceased was admitted to the institution on 13th December. She was almost completely paralysed, but could move her left leg a little, and had some power of ■ ispeech. Sl*'made no direct. statement, but corroborated the statements made by her relatives to one of the house surgeons by repeating what was said. Her condition did not improve, and on 18th' December she became completely unconscious, and remained in that state until her death on 23rd insfr. Witness noticed a bruise behind the right ear, and he considered that the blow causing that bruise would have caused the damage to the vertebrall. In summing up the evidence, the Coroner said that the effect of the medical statements was that the fracture of the spinal column could only have been caused by direct violence, either by a blow from or by a fall on some hard substance. There was no evidence to show that anyone had interfered with deceased except Thomas Albrecht. Had he not interfered with his mother, there was no doubt that she would have been living to-day, but whether the son had been guilty of a criminal act or of a criminal intention, it was not for the present Court. to decide. I^ts duty was simply' to bring in a verdict as to the cause of death. He would find, therefore, that death resulted from a fracture of the spine at the fourth vertebra, due to a blow inflicted by Thomas ■ Albrecht on 4th December.