MAORI GIRL’S DEATH

Hokitika Guardian, 19 October 1925, Page 1

MAORI GIRL’S DEATH

BY TELEGRAPH—PRESS ASSN., COPYRIGHT GISBOBNE, Oct. 17. ' Somewhat unusual circumstances wore revealed at tho inquest on tlio ' death of a .Maori girl, j\ 1 ary Paipa, at L Awaptini I’a. Deceased’s mother said that on October 1. the girl was carry--1 iny a tin of liot water from the (ire, when she tripped and was scalded. Two doctors,, J)rs Augell and Scott, had heen out to the I’a, and one of the doctors sent Lady Carrol to take the girl from the Pa. and this was done. To Coroner (Mr Leery, 5.. M.) witness said that nothing was done immediately for the girl, except that her clothes were taken off, and she was covered with a piece of calico. At times the girl seemed to he in great agony. "Witness's daughter went to a chemists and got medicines, one to betaken and the other applied. It did not occur to witness to take the girl to the Cook Hospital, and they never had a conveyance. Witness admitted she did not ring the Hospital. Dr Scott said he and Dr Augell had seen the girl on October 10. Dr Angcll had ordered her removal to tho hospital, hut it was found that site had not- been sent there. Witness saw her at Lady Carroll’s. Her condition was then critical, and it had iieen when Dr Augell saw her, she being sent to the hospital as a formality. The patient’s condition was hopeless, she was suffering from toxic exhaustion, caused l>v severe scalds on the hips, legs and thighs. The Coroner said he wanted to know I why the .patient had not been sent to the hospital. ‘lt may have been useless.” he added, ‘‘but I am not going lo leave ii to Die Maoris to decide.” Witness said the Maoris had a great dislike to the hospital. Tho Maoris had attended to the burns as well as anyone could have done. Scalds might not look anything serious for the first few days. The Coroner: There is one thing T must ask- “Why did you certify as to the cause of death:-’" Witness: "I am not very well conversant with Die regulations, but 1 think 1 was justified under the rurrumstaneos.” The Coroner: “Where death is not due to natural causes?” Witness “Tho only fault that I could find was that the girl had not been sent to the hospital. There is no law to require that.” The Coroner: ‘MI may not have been an accident.” Witness said the girl had told him how (he scalds occurred. He was convinced there were no suspicious circumstances. Otherwise he would have ( nolitied the police. The Coroner said he was not comnieiiling on witness’s action, hut it would la? wise for a decision as to the , necessity for the inquest to he left to the Coroner. The Coroner returned a verdict that dent It was the result of serious scalds accidentally .sustained.