TRIAL OF NURSE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIII, Issue 72, 7 March 1933, Page 9

TRIAL OF NURSE

POISON CHARGES

ILLNESS OF CHILD. SO EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE. Auckland, March 6. The lengthy trial of Nurse Elspeth Kerr is drawing to a close. The conclusion of the evidence for the Crown was reached to-day, and no evidence was called for the defence. The charges against Nurse Kerr are that, on April 8, 10 and 16, 1932. she administered a poisonous drug to her eight-year-old foster-daughter, Dorolhv Betty Cameron, with intent to injure her and so as to endanger her life. After the evidence had been completed Mr Singer, for the accused, raised points of law that were over-ruled by His Honour, and Mr Meredith, for the Crown, then addressed the jury. Mr Singer’s address was postponed until to-morrow, and that will be followed by His Honour’s summing-up.

Addressing the jury, Mr Meredith said that when the child was admitted to hospital on April 10 her condition was so serious that there was a consultation of medical men. She recovered from the coma, and the next day a sample was taken from her. Two and a-half grains of the drug were found in the sample. That was sufficient to account for the trouble that had been puzzling the doctors. Mr Meredith reminded the jury that on April 16 Dr. Stallworthy examined the child and found her in good condition. Nurse Kerr was in the ward at the time. This was followed by the child lapsing into

a state, of coma later in the day. and on April 18 the poison was found in samples taken from the child.

Counsel said that the child’s coma could be attributed to poisoning. It was certain that Betty Kerr had had the poison administered to her, and the only person who could have given it. to her was Nurse Kerr. Mr Meredith then referred to the evidence respecting Kerr, which, he said, showed that he had been given a large dose of the poison. There was coma also in the case of Mrs Day and the finding of the poison in her grave, continued counsel. TliJ evidence showed that Mrs Day must have been given a large dose. The jury had to decide whether Betty was given the poison with intent to injure, and if it did endanger her life. If they came to the conclusion that it was given by Nurse Kerr with intent to injure, they should And accordingly. They had to consider whether the drug might have been given accidentally or given in ignorance with good intent. It would be hard to find circumstances that would explain that the administration of the drug at Nurse Kerr’s home and again at the Auckland Hospital could be accidental. Nurse Kerr was a nurse of long experience. Could it be thought that one of such experience would not know the properties of such a common hypnotic! Another point, said Mr Meredith, was that the child had virtually recovered under the hospital doctors and nurses. Could it be imagined that, after the alarming illness of April 10, the nurse would take the risk of giving a further dose on April 16 if she did not intend to injure! The hearing will be continued to morrow.