ATTENDANT ACQUITTED

Evening Star, Issue 23093, 20 October 1938, Page 22

ATTENDANT ACQUITTED

HOT GUILTY OF ASSAULT IRSIDENT AT SEACLIFF INSTITUTION Found not guilty on a charge of assaulting a patient at the Seacliff Mental Hospital, Robert Moffat Jordan was discharged by Mr Justice Kennedy in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon, the jury having arrived at this verdict after a retirement of 38 minutes. The case was the sequel to an incident at Seacliff on December 9 of last yar, the Crown’s allegation being that Jordan, who was then an attendant at the institution, went to a patient’s room and struck him. Jordan and the patient had been involved in a scuffle earlier in the day, in which Jordan, in attempting to restrain the patient, wag hit by him. ■ Mr F. B. Adams conducted the case for the Crown. Jordan being defended by Mr E. J. Anderson. Cross-examined by Mr Anderson,_ Dr D. G. M'Lachlan said that the patient was impulsive without being violent. Witness said it was unlikely that he sustained his injury in a fall, but not impossible. If this had been so the injury would have been diffused, and not localised, as it was. Witness did not agree with the assumption that the bones of the insane were more likely to fracture than those of normal people. An X-ray in this case showed normal and healthy bones. The disease of fragility of bone was now very rare indeed. Re-examined, Dr M‘Lachlan-told Mr Adams that had the patient sustained in the afternoon such an injury as he did he would not have been able to eat his tea. There had been only four fractures in four years at Seacliff. Dr Malcolm Brown, medical superintendent of the institution, gave corroborative evidence. It appeared, most probable, he said, that the patient’s injury was caused by direct violence—a blow. Jordan subsequently denied that he had been in the patienFs room or that he had struck the patient. The patient’s condition at that time was not such that he would complain at being struck. The injury could have been inflicted by a blow through the blankets. The patient had suffered .no lasting injury. He was not a case of fragilitas ossium (fragility of bone). Witness had seen only one possible case of that disease in his experience. In cross-examination. Dr Brown said it was possible that the injury had been caused by a fall in the scuffle in the afternoon. It was not impossible that the patient should have thrown himself out of bed. To the Crown Prosecutor: It was most, unlikely that he would have thrown himself out of bed in his condition at that time. It was unlikely that he would injure himself -by impulsive movements. Detective-sergeant T. Y'. Hall said that when he first interviewed the ac-. eused the latter said he did not strike the patient. The accused saw witness again on the following day (December 16), when he said' he did not intend to give an explanation. That completed the case for the Crown, and Mr Anderson said he \ did not propose to call evidence for the defence. In his address to the jury Mr Adams said that the evidence of the attendant who spoke to the accused at the door to the patient’s room had not been challenged or contradicted. He reviewed the evidence, which was necessarily circumstantial, and suggested that there was no other logical .conclusion to be drawn from the facts than that put forward by the Crown. It was established beyond doubt that the patient concerned in this incident was impulsive and violent, Mr Anderson said. He submitted that the patient was a type of person liable to inflict self-damage. It had been admitted by the doctors that it was possible for him to have thrown himself out of bed or against a wall. Then it was quite feasible and likely that in the scuffle in the park he struck his head against a drain or against a wall. There had: been nothing in the evidence to eliminate that possibility, or the possibility that he had damaged himself in his room. It was suggested by the Crown that the accused hath deliberately sought out the patient with the .'intention of punching or kicking him. If that were his intention, he had gone about accomplishing it in a most stupid way. Why not give the accused credit for going.to see the patient for the purpose of soothing him? Mr Anderson’ suggested. Also, there was no evidence that the accused was actually in the. patient’s room. On all the evidence, Mr Anderson submitted that the jury could not eliminate all reasonable doubt. His Honour summed up and the jury retired at 4.37 p.m. and returned at 5.15 with a verdict of not guilty. The prisoner was discharged.