NURSE PROSECUTED

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12458, 28 May 1926, Page 4

NURSE PROSECUTED

ALLEGED BREACHES OF ACT CONDUCT OF MATERNITY HOSPITALS. Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, Alay 27. The prosecution of Mrs E. J. Ful-lerton-Whyte, formerly licenseo ot Willesden and Fencourt private hospitals, for alleged breaches of Hospital and Charitable Institutions Act in relation to maternity patients, was continued in the Police Court to-day. A charge that the defendant had permitted a patient to occupy the same room with another patient exhibiting signs of morbidity was withdrawn. For the defence, Mr Moody said that in regard to the charge relating to Mrs Gumby there was only her statement in support of tho allegation. In respect to Mr© Hamilton, it had been shown the temperature charts produced had ) ten corroborated. It had been the custom to take temperatures and Airs Fullerton-Whyte had always given careful instructions. Air Hunt, S.AI.: This case is six months old. It is a pity action was not more prompt. Mr Aioody said it was not until October 20th that Airs FullertonWhyte ascertained there was any suggestion of suspicious temperatures. Tho magistrate: She took steps to clear the hospital on October 20tli. It seems hard that she should be prosecuted for an alleged breach on that day. Air Aioody said that every doctor in Auckland could certify to tli© conduct of Willesden. The magistrate: We will assume that. Counsel said the Health Department had raised no objection to Airs Ful-lerton-Whytc continuing at Fencourt after Willesden had been closed. She had not attended confinements at Willesden. The magistrate: There is evidence that she examined a patient. Air Aioody: That is denied. Airs Sylvia Alay Alnckav said she entered Willesden on October 3rd and left on October 20th. She was in the same room as Airs Edwards, anil AJis Hamilton was also in the room for some time. Airs Fullerton-Whyte did not attend to patients. She was sure the patient who alleged that Airs Ful-

lerton-Whyte had examined her was mistaken. lu reply to tho magistrate the witness said lier temperature had not been taken every day. . ' The defendant, in evidence, said her experience extended over ten . years. She employed two other icgister3d nurses and was authorised to conduct both ihe Willesden and Fencourt. Willesden had been in her charge for nine years. The nurse at WiUesdun had instructions to take temperatures regularly. On October 20th witness received a report that Mrs Strong s temperature wa? 101 degrees. when her temperature was still hick on the following morning witness advised Dr Hughes. . The case was adjourned till to-mor-row.