KICKED BY A HORSE.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 5 April 1928, Page 5

KICKED BY A HORSE.

BABY DIES FROM INJURIES. EVIDENCE AT INQUEST. The circumstances surrounding the death in the Hawera Hospital on April 1 of an infant boy, Philip Ronald Nicholson, 16 months of age, following his admission a fortnight previously with head injuries, were reviewed at an inquest conducted by Sergeant J. Henry at the Hawera Court yesterday, before Mr. R. S. Sage, J.P. (actingcoroner), and a jury consisting ol [Messrs R. W. J. McNeill, J.P (foreman), IV. J. Woollett, H. Fryer, and J. McAneny.

The child was the son of Mr. and Mrs. F. T. Nicholson, residing on the Austin Road, both of whom were present at the inquest. At the conclusion of the evidence the jury, without retiring, returned a verdict that the child died as the result of injuries received through being accidentally kicked by a horse.

“The cause of death in my opinion was shock and exhaustion following severe laceration of the brain, associated with a compound fracture of the skull consequent upon an injury,” said Dr. J. McGhie, who had attended the child in the hospital on March 18. The injuries were consistent with the child having been kicked by a horse. Everything possible had been done to save the child’s life, said the doctor, though he had considered recovery was practically hopeless and had so informed the parents. He iiad further told them there was a faint hope that an operation might prove successful. An operation was performed at 6.30 p.m. on March 31, and witness found, as he had at first suspected, that the brain was severely lacerated. The child died at 12.30 o’clock on the following morning. Medical evidence was also given by the house surgeon, Dr. N. T. Marams, who had given attention when the child was brought to tire hospital at about 8 o’clock on the morning of [March 18. The child had been in a semi-conscious condition when admitted to the hospital and had not regained consciousness. Lloyd Nicholson, 11 years of age, said he was going out to get his pony when he heard a cry from his baby brother and found him in the horse paddock close to the house. Ronald was on his hands and knees and his forehead was bleeding from a big gash. There were three horses in the paddock. THE FATHER’S COMPLAINT. “The baby could walk,” said the father in evidence. On returning to the house from the cowshed lie found the child, who had been picked up by his mother, injured as described by the pi e vious witness. Apparently the child had gone through a gap in the fence aml done something which had caused one of the horses to kick, a.s the animal which witness thought was responsible was particularly quiet. “I don’t consider the child got fair dues at the hospital when it was first admitted,” continued witness. The Coroner: I think you should have questioned the doctor before he left the inquest. Witness : I told the doctor I was going to say what I thought of it. 1 asked at the hospital that Dr. Thomson and then Dr IMcGhie he sent for. hut I was told there was no need. I dicl not know I had a chance of questioning the doctors when they were here.

The Coroner: It is hardly fair to complain concerning them during their absence.

Witness: T thank you very much, and will out it to the Hospital Board. The witness made as if to leave the witness-box and was persuaded to remain.

“Dr. McGhie apologised to me for not doing what he should have done.' he continued. ‘T agree lie did all he coukl, hut it was then too late.” Witness was proceeding with a. statement concerning the action of the house surgeon in cleansing the wound without administering an anaesthetic’ when he was again interrupted by tlie Coroner, who said the witness should not in the absence of the doctor raise questions as to the latter’s professional conduct, and Sergeant Henry protested that witness might be raising suggestions concerning which he hail not tlie necessary medical knowledge. As a result- the proceedings were adjourned to enable the recall of t’’o doctors, who on the conclusion of their evidence had been given permission to retire

When proceedings were resumed the Coroner remarked that it was not for Mr. Nbholson to make a statement other than to give evidence of the ‘’acts, but he could put any questions ’'Onring on the case to the doctors. MFDTCAL MEN RE-EXAMINED. “Definitely no. There were no indications lor operation,” said Dr. McGhie, in reply to the foreman’s query as .to whether it would have heen better to operate sooner. The foreman: Do you think he .reran e:l the treatmeft lie should have when admitted ? —Aosolutely. Mr. Nicholson : Wliv did you not personally attend to the child on admission to the hospital?—As honorary surgeon I attend immediately on being called to an urgent case, hut this was not considered so. Answering Airs Nicholson, the doctor said there was no haemorrhage of tlie brain. “May I ask if I am on trial, and have I any redress for libellous statements? 1 do not know what has already been said to the jury,” said l)r. AlcGhie. The Coroner: No. hut you must answer such questions as the jury may allow. Mrs. Nicholson: Do you think the chi’d could have recovered if the wound

had not gone septic? —No. It is impossible to guarantee that any wounc. will be without infection, especially where there are damaged tissues, such as must result from a bruise. These tissues are much more liable to infection than normal healthy tissues. The fact that the child did not develop obvious infection of the brain ibr L days is an indication that the wound must have been very efficiently dealt with to begin with. Also, even without a wound in the head, infection can take place from the nose. W hy did you not instruct the house surgeon to administer an anaesthetic in the first place?—Because I did not think it was necessary. Then do you consider the wound could have been cleansed sufficiently and efficiently without an anaesthetic and in the "time it took this young man to do it? —I do not know how long it took Dr. Marams.

Mr. Nicholson: Why did you apologise to me at the child\s bedside because you had not attended the child in the first place ?—-I did not apologise because I had not attended the child, lint, having heard Mr. Nicholson’s side of the story only, I apologised that he had had such difficulty in getting the child admitted to the ospitnt. FATHER QUITE SATISFIED. Mr. Nicholson repeated his formei statement that lie was quite satisheo Dr. McGliie had done all lie coulo under the circumstances. Questioning Dr. Marams, Mr. Nicho.son asned why the former had stated tiie wound was only a simple cut. The doctor replied that when lit made the statement he had not hat time to fully examine te child. A further examination revealed the fracture and Mr. Nicholson had been informed. Why did you inform me there wen. no broken bones? —I did not tell Mr. iNicholson there were no broken bones. After the first examination I told Mr. Nicholson that until I had examine# the wound thoroughly I could not ku\ whether there was a fracture or not .Mrs. Nicholson: Was there any other doctor in the hospital when you attended to the child?—Dr. Cairney was available, lie was in liis house, which is in front of the hospital. The jury’s verdict was given as indicated.