ASSAULT CHARGE

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21409, 27 February 1935, Page 9

ASSAULT CHARGE

greymouth hospital CASE MEDICAL EVIDENCE HEARD (SPECIAL TO THE TRESS.) GREYMOUTH, February 26. A queue of people, including many women, waited outside the Magistrate's Court to-day, and when they were admitted there was not standing room. The hearing was resumed of the case in which J. W. Eridgeman, medical superintendent of the Grey River Hospital, is charged with assault, by Ellen Haydon, until recently a sister at the hospital. Public interest in the case is intense, and Mr C S Thomas, counsel for Bridgeman twice appealed to the magistrate, Mr H. Morgan, S.M., for quietness in the court, stating that he did not know whether the court had turned into a theatre, but there was obvious applause and sniggering when questions were nskcci unci miswcrccl by trie witnesses. . . The magistrate issued a warning that he would order the removal from court of people who were noticed to be making the sounds complained of, and also sent for additional police to keep order in the court room. When the case was resumed, Mr i. F Brosnan, counsel for plaintiff, called Dr. J. F. C. Moore, of Greymouth, who gave evidence of examining plaintiff, with Dr. W. A. Bird, some eight hours after the alleged assault. Witness detailed the marks found on plaintiff's arms. On the right arm there was an elongated reddish and d:irk blue, with three paler areas which could have been produced by pressure from lingers. In his opinion. the bruises had been received within 12 hours of the examination. The injuries he saw were consistent with the plaintiff's evidence of what happened. * Cross-examined by Mr Thomas witness would neither affirm nor den- that during his term as medical superintendent at the hospital, ho stated that Haydon was a menace to the patients. To Mr Brosnan, witness said he considered that the sister could not have made the marks on herself unless she had fallen over.

Dr. W A. Bird, of Grcymouth, corroborated Dr. Moore's evidence. Tear in Uniform Mr Thomas produced Haydon's uniforms, and asked plaintiff to show the court where the alleged tear under the arm had been. She examined the uniforms and then pointed out one to the magistrate which showed repaired stitching under the arms. Mr Thomas alleged that the witnesses for the prosecution had said there was a tear, not an undone scam, after the alleged assault. Mr Brosnari recalled Dr. Bird about the question of a thumb mark. Mr Thomas questioned witness at length as to how it was possible for a person to be swung round without a thumb mark appearing along with the other bruises. The doctor maintained it was possible. This concluded the evidence for the prosecution. Mr Thomas took 45 minutes for his opening address, and said that ;he hospital was in a state of chaos when Hridgeman took over in September. In endeavouring to "clean up" the doctor had made himself unpopular. The tightening up of discipline had made Haydon think she was persecuted. A larce number of the staff had left, some having resigned for various reasons, and some for drunkenness, forging references, theft of drugs, and being drug addicts. The drink bill had been reduced by the doctor from £325 a year to £ls. The doctor had had to reprimand almost every nurse in t..e hospital, including Haydon frequently. The Assistant Director of Health had recommended . the removal of three junior sisters, including Haydon. Mr Thomas admitted that possibly there had been a row on the night of the alleged assault, but that the elbow was bruised by the sister hacking into a wall, and that the bruise on the right arm was caused when she was in hysterics, by other nurses restraining her. In evidence, the defendant stated that the hospital was in a state of chaos when he took over. He tried to improve matters, he hoped with a certain amount of success. A large number of the staff had gone for the reasons stated by Mr Thomas. The general tightening of the reins had caused unpleasantness for him. He had had trouble with Haydon the first week, and right up to the alleged occurrence. On the morning referred to he questioned her about an alleged false report in the book. There were words iDetween them. She backed out into the corridor, saying, "I have got someone who will fix you for this." Dr. Bridgeman said that not then or at any other time had he laid a hand on her.. Anything he had done

was in the ordinary course of his duty. Cross-examined by Mr Brosnan defendant admitted he had been concerned with an assault case in Southland, but the charge against him waj dismissed. He admitted that if he lost the case it might have serious consequences for him, but he could not say. The defendant was still under crossexamination when the court adjourned for tea. Evening: Session When the court resumed this evening the room was again crowded. Mr Brosnan continued the cross-examina-tion of the defendant, who admitted receiving a letter from Mr Brosnan on February 2, asking for a written assurance that the alleged happening would not occur again, but as he did not do such a thing he would not commit himself by replying. Witness continued to detail the happenings at the hospital since he took charge, and the reasons for his reprimanding plaintiff, stating that he frequently spoke to her about the dirtiness of her wards. Shortly after his arrival at the hospital one nurse had gone on duty drunk. The drug register showed an abnormally large number of morphia tablets were missing and marked down as destroyed. When his office was being cleared out on his arrival, empty drug bottles were found. They should not have been there. The defendant held that it was quite possible that the bruising was caused when the plaintiff was held by the nurses. There were marks on the office door which could have been made by a torch and a requisition was made for a new globe a few days afterwards. In reply to Mr Brosnan, defendant said that he had to put up with a lot from the plaintiff. In reply to the magistrate, defendant said that she had not been dismissed because, it was realised that it would be difficult for her to secure another position in these times. Adjourned Sine Die At the conclusion of the defendant's evidence the magistrate intimated that he could not hear any more evidence on the case at present, and therefore the case was adjourned sine die, to be called on three days' notice.