ALLEGED ASSAULT

Evening Star, Issue 23092, 19 October 1938, Page 13

ALLEGED ASSAULT

INCIDENT IN MENTAL HOSPITAL ATTENDANT CHARGED WITH ATTACK 8H PATIENT The trial was commenced before Mr Justice Kennedy in the Supreme Court this morning of Robert Moffat Jordan, an attendant at the Seaclift Mental Hospital, on a charge of assaulting a. patient of the institution. Mr F. B. Adams conducted the case for the Grown, and the accused, who pleaded not guilty, was represented by Mr E. J. Anderson. Mr Adams to'ld the jury that the incident on which the charge was based was alleged to have occurred at Seacliff on the evening of December 9 last. The patient concerned, of course, was not a person who could be brought forward as a witness, and the Crown case would rest upon the evidence of others. The allegation against Jordan was that he went to the bedroom occupied by the patient and struck him a violent Mow which did serious damage. The accused had made no statement to the police, and as yet his defence had not been disclosed, other than a denial of the charge. “ The evidence will show that Jordan was involved in an affray with the patient in the grounds of the institution on the afternoon of December 9,” continued the Crown Prosecutor. “The patient on that occasion struck Jordan a violent blow, of sufficient force to break his denture. The patient was. of course, a mentally defective person and a man vvho was apt to do this sort of thing. No provocation was given bv Jordan, and there was no justification or excuse for such an attack if it were made by a mentally competent person. But what occurred on the afternoon, although it might have incensed Jordan, ought to have been regarded by him merely as an unfortunate incident in the course of his work. At that time Jordan did have to exercise a certain degree of force in restraining the patient, but there is no suggestion that his conduct then was other than it should have been. The patient calmed down, and Jordan went about other duties.” Nothing else untoward occurred dur-

ing the afternoon, said Mr Adams. The patient had his tea and was then showing no signs of injury or distress. He was put to bed in the single room he occupied on the upper floor. During the evening a picture show was held in the social hall for the inmates, and Jordan was among those on duty there. The case for the Crown would be that after leaving the pictures at 8 p.m. Jordan was seen at the door of the patient’s room (a place where he had no occasion to be) by another attendant, to whom he said; “I’m going in here to fix this fellow up.” The other attendant said: “ Don’t be silly,” and Jordan replied: “Don’t say anything about it and don’t mention my being up here.” There was no reason why ho should have entered that room. The next morning the patient was observed to have a swollen and injured face. He had great difficulty in eating his breakfast, and it was then discovered that one of the bones in his jaw was broken, which was an indication of the severitv of the blow he -had received. Jordan was interviewed about the matter, but he denied that he struck the blow.

Evin Campbell Coutts, an attendant at the institution, described the patient as a man who was likely to strike out at any time. That fact about him was well-known. Witness gave evidence concerning the scuffle in the grounds in the afternoon. Although Jordon did not strike the patient, both were on the ground and it was quite possible that the latter suffered an injury. Witness was on duty that evening at the pictures shown in the hall until he had to leave to “ do ” his rounds. Jordan assisted him oh the rounds, and they passed Jordan’s room but had no occasion to go in. To Mr Anderson, witness said in his opinion Jordan handled the patient very well in and after the -scuffle. It was possible that the patient struck his head against a wall or a drain. Martin Beasle.y, head attendant at the hospital, said that he saw the patient after he had gone to bed, and there did not appear to be anything unusual about him then. At tea time witness bad asked him if be was all right, but the patient did not reply. There was nothing unusual in that, as he seldom replied to questions. Witness described the patient’s condition on the following morning. The latter did not reply when questioned as to what was wrong with his face. There was no likelihood that he might have injured himself in his room. To Mr Anderson: The patient was of the aggressive type. William Kaveney. another attendant, said he saw the patient into bed on the evening of December 9. There was then no sign of any injury to his head or face,' but the injury was noticeable when witness saw him at breakfast the following morning. The swelling was so severe that the patient bad great difficulty in eating. To Mr Anderson: The patient was impulsive and fairly _ hard to manage. Witness had seen him strike out before. Douglas Affleck Ireland, who was also employed at the institution as an attendant, described his encounter with Jordan at _ the door of the patient’s room and his conversation with Jordan in which the latter said: “I’m going

to fix this fellow up.” Witness told him not to be silly, and Jordan then asked him not to mention that he (Jordan) was up there at that point. As witness left, Jordan was opening the door of the patients’ room. Jordan was not at this time on duty in the ward. Mr Anderson: You are aware that if a threat is made to a patient that is a matter for an immediate ■ report ? Yes. Did you report Jordan's words?— No, 1 only reported seeing him up there. y When did you report that?—The following afternoon. At the time you_ did not take Jordan’s words as serious?—No. 1 took them partly as a threat but, knowing him, did not take any further notice. Did you hear or see anything?—No. Re-examined by Mr Adams, witness said that he made his report when he heard that the patient had been injured. He had not taken Jordan’s words seriously. If he had he would have prevented anything from happening. Dr D. G. M'Lachlan, assistant medical officer at Seacliff, said that the patient’s disorder took the form of a withdrawal from reality. He was apathetic and dull, and was stuperose for most of the time. Any injuries he might have received had not affected his mental condition. He was impulsive and likely to hit out at people without provocation. Witness examined him the morning after the alleged assault, but could get no reply to any questions. Witness described the injuries sustained by the patient,' who resented the examination and could not co-operate. The right side of his face was greatly swollen. Two days later witness was able to find ■ that there was a fracture of the jaw, of which he had been convinced at tho preliminary examination. The patient was subsequently despatched to the Dunedin Public Hospital. Before lie left he was much more co-operative. Witness did not think it possible that his injury could have been self-in-flicted. The luncheon adjournment was then taken.