CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18724, 30 November 1922, Page 8

CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER

MENTAL PATIENT’S DEATH. NURSE COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. (Pan United Pbebs Association.) WELLINGTON, November 29. A most unusual charge came before .the Magistrate’s Court, • when Edith Mary Armstrong, 30 years of age, employed as a nurse at ■ Porirua Mental was charged that, on November 16, by omission, without lawful excuse, of a legal duty, she caused the death, of a female inmate of the hospital, thereby committing manslaughter. Chief Detective Kemp said accused had been a nurse for about three months prior to the date of the charge. The deceased was’admitted as a patient in 1914, and had been there since. She had been in feeble health recently. On November 16 she was bathed by the accused at 2.50 p.m. The regulations posted in every bathroom stipulated that when a bath was prepared the cold water must be turned on first. On this occasion the hot water was turned on first, because the key to tho cold water tap was missing. About six gallons of cold water was added to tho hot. The nurse tested tho water with both her hands and elbows, and thought it was not more than 98 degrees; The patient was very light, and was lifted by the nurse into the bath. She remained there for three minutes. No sign of any injury was given by the deceased. It was the following day before the scalds were discovered. She was treated, and progressed favourably till November 20, when she -collapsed and died. A post mortem examination showed that she died of shock. It was the omission to put in the cold water first' which was the basis of the charge; The bath might have retained the heat, though tho heat of the water was reduced. Dr P. J. Monaghan, of the hospital, said deceased whs suffering from a few burns, all of a superficial nature, causing the least irritation, except one, when he first saw the patient, and they wore all healing on the 20th except one. Deceased was very small. She only weighed five stone, and her heart only weighed ounces. She was mentally incapable of making any complaint. Her condition, was very feeble. Death was due to burns, taken in conjunction with tho state of deceased and her heart.

To Mr Perry: There was nothing whatever to show that the burns bad affected deceased. Up till the time she callapsed she was making a very satisfactory recovery, from 1917 deceased’s weight flucuated from 4s 3lb to 6st, but she was rarely over sst. This was abnormally low. The normal weight of a woman’s heart was from eight to ten ounces.

Sir Perry: May I suggest that deceased may have died as she did, even if sho had never been bathed on November 16?

Witness: Any small illness or injury in her case might have led to her sudden death.

Mr Perry: She may have died at any time, in any case? Witness: Oh, yes. His Worship: Was there any reason to expect that she would have died in the absence of some shock?

Witness: No, but I would never have been surprised if she had died. Margaret Ogilvie, matron at the Mental Hospital, said accused was not a trained nurse. Nurses were instructed in the method of bathing. TV Mr Perry: Accused was a capable probationer, who had never caused any trouble, and was well spoken of. For a year deceased had to be assisted whenever she moved about.

Pearl .Young, a day nurse at the hospital. described the finding of the burns on deceased. Deceased showed no sign of pain, and appeared as usual. To Mi - Perry: Whoever dressed the deceased in the morning after the bath should have discovered the burns. Witness discovered the bums at about 1.15 p.m. on November 17. Mr Perry; This patient was often bathed twice a day. Witness; Yes. Mr 1 Perry: Wei], she may have been bathed between 2.39 p.m. on Thursday and 1.30 p.m. on Friday. Witness: Yes. The charge nurse should have known. Witness said she did not know of deceased being bathed twice on Friday. Louisa Poppleton, a. night nurse, said deceased showed no sign of pain on the night of the 16th. Witness examined deceased several times during the night. She was surprised! to learn later that deceased was supposed to have been scalded on the 16th. ...

The Matron (recalled) said she could find no one who had bathed deceased from November 14 to 16. , Detective William - Nut-tall stated that he interviewed the accused. The accused know the bathing- regulations. - She said she noticed no marks on the deceased. She said she did 1 not think she had been burned in the bath, and found that the porcelain was not bettor than the water when the temperature was reduced. Mr Perry, for accused, said there was no evidence whatever to show that the burns had been sustained while deceased was in accused's • charge. - Mr Perry recalled Dr Monaghan, who said he was afraid, death must be connected with the bums. Mr E. Page, S.M., held that there was a case to answer. Accused pleaded not guilty, and was committed for trial. Bail was allowed in £IOO and ono surety of £IOO.