ALLEGED ATTEMPTED MURDER.

Otago Witness, Issue 3882, 7 August 1928, Page 69

ALLEGED ATTEMPTED MURDER.

POISON ADDED TO FOOD. GUILTY ON MINOR COUNT. WELLINGTON, August 1. The trial of Marion Koerbin on a charge of attempting to murder her husband was continued in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr Justice Sim. Mr Sievwright, the accused’s counsel, placed her in the box.

In presenting the case for the defence, Mr Sievwright said that Mrs Koerbin denied any attempt to injure Koerbin. The parties were not on good terms, and Mrs Koerbin’s evidence would indicate that she wanted to do something that would stop her husband’s conduct. The was obtained for showing her husband that she could retaliate. Her action was only a gesture. The tin was left in the scullery so that her husband could see it. She thought it was a harmless powder, but she wanted her husband to think it was a danger. She placed the stuff in her box where she knew her husband would find it, and say: “ Look here, what’s the meaning of this? Let us have a settlement of our differences.” She left the dining room slide up so that Koerbin could see her putting the stuff in his food. She knew that he would not eat it. Mrs Koerbin would deny that she ‘put glass in the food, and the only inference could be that Koerbin put the glass in the food. Koerbin’s vomiting was due to his over-indulgence in liquor. His other sickness was due to a cold.

Marion Koerbin, the accused, gave evidence. She denied that she had been discontented. She said her husband had made a pastime of tormenting her.

Mr Macassey said that it was known that there had been domestic trouble. He objected to the examination. His Honor: The worse you make Koer bin to be, Mr Sievwright, the stronger you make the ease against yourself. You Show that your client had all the more reason to get rid of him. Mr Sievwright: Mrs Koerbin, just pass that by for a moment.

.His Honor: Pass it by altogether, Mr Sievwright, please. Continuing, Mrs Koerbin said that the first suggestion about poison came from Koerbin. He said that his friends had said: “Why don’t you give that woman a dose of rat poison or hit her on the head with a hammer?” She saw the tin of rat poison in the shop, and thought that if she had it she could show him she could retaliate if she wanted to. She did not believe the rat poison to be deadly. His Honor: It was deadly to rats. Mr Sievwright:- Nobody suggests that Koerbin was a rat.

Mrs Koerbin said she knew that her husband was watching her, and so she left the slide open. On one occasion when she knew her husband was watching she put the stuff in his food, but she never intended to harm him. She wanted him to come to her and say: “ Cut it out, and I will cut it out.” In reference to the powdered glass Mrs Koerbin said she had had it in another house.

His Honor: It is not the sort of" thing a woman keeps in her house. Witness: I put it alongside the white powder just to frighten him. To Mr Macassey: She threw the tin away at Courtenay place because she did not want her husband to think she had bought two tins. Mr Macassey: Did you powder that glass ?—Yes. What for?—l thought it might frighten him off. When did you powder it?—A few months ago. You say it came from electric globes. That is not true?—Yes, it is true. You suggest that the mere sight of the glass in your box would suggest that you were goin to' use it in his food ?— Yes. You wanted him to believe that you were going to use the glass in his food. It that not so?—Yes. It was found in the tripe, but I understand you to say that you did not put it there ?—No. You sent the boy out with the porridge containing the rat poison to give to your husband ?—Yes, but I did not expect him to have it. On three occasions did you not believe that he had eaten his porridge ?—I thought he had thrown it out. I expected he would. If he threw it out would not you have expected him to have spoken about it?—Yes. If he had known it was poisoned and threw it out he would have accused you. How could you think that he had thrown it out when he said nothing to you about it ?—1 would have expected him to say something about it. Mr Macassey: And he did not.—No.’ Mr Macassey: When the police came you admitted that you put rat poison in the porridge on June 26? —Yes. How often had vou done that before? —Only once, when I knew he was watch-' ing me about a fortnight before. What do you think the effect would have been had your husband taken the food you gave him ?—I consider it would be quite harmless. Would you give it to your children?— Certainly not. I did not think it would harm an individual.

Did you inquire what effect the rat poison would have when you bought it?—No. I noticed the label said: “This poison is not deadly and can be handled without fear.*

Do you remember saying to Detective Holmes: “ I will tell you all about R ’ No. Detective Holmes said to me: “If you tell us all about it it will be the better for yourself. If you help us, we will help you.” Why did you not tell the detectives that you had put the rat poison into your husband’s food simply to frighten him? Why should I tell the detectives? If your husband was objectionable, why did you not leave the liouse?—Because I had two children.

What do you consider your husband was worth ? —£50,000.

His Honor: Do you really think that he is worth £50,000. He states that he has only £4OOO.

The accused: Well, he has told me that he gets over £lOO a week from property he owns.

Mr Macassey: Instead of leaving the house you preferred to stay on° and poison your husband in ‘order to get his money. &

Addressing the jury, Mr Sievwright contended that the jury would have no difficulty in dismissing the charge of attempted murder, though there might be grai e considerations in the second chaige of attempting to administer poison with intent to injure or annoy. He submitted that there was no evidence to show that poison was ever administered to Koerbin or that Mrs Koerbin ever did anything with : ntent to injure or annoy her husband. There was nothing secretive about her actions. Mr Macassey declared the defence to be one of the most extraordinary ever heard. The accused had been found in possession of barium carbonate and powdered glass and he asked, What were those two commodities for?

His Honor, in summing up, said it had been put forward by counsel for the accused that this was a gesture of reconciliation. There had been manv gestures throughout history, but surely to put rat poison in his food was the most extraordinary gesture which had ever been made by a wife to her husband.

The jury retired at 4.5 p.m. and returned at 4.5 G p.m. with a verdict of not guilty on the charge of attempted murder, but guilty on the charge of attempting to administer poison with intent to injure or annoy. It added a strong recommendation to mercy.

THREE MONTHS’ IMPRISONMENT,

WELLINGTON, August 3. Marion Koerbin, aged 43, who was found guilty in the Supreme Court of attempting to administer poison with the intention to injure or annoy her husband, Herbert Koerbin, was sentenced by Mr Justice Sim this morning to three months’ imprisonment.

Mr Sievwright pointed out that the jury made a strong recommendation to mercy. The prisoner had an unblemished record, and had been a good mother to her children. A severe sentence, as a deterrent, was hardly necessary from the public point of view, as the crime was not a common one.

His Honor said it was fortunate for prisoner that the jury felt justified in acquitting her on the more serious charge of attempted murder. He desired to give effect to the jury’s recommendation as far as possible. It seemed clear that prisoner would have to undergo a term of imprisonment, and, in fixing the term, he would take into consideration the fact that she had been in custody since her arrest on .Tune 26.