MARION KOERBIN'S AMAZING NARRATIVE

NZ Truth, Issue 1184, 9 August 1928, Page 8

MARION KOERBIN'S AMAZING NARRATIVE

Thought Rat Poison In Husband's Porridge Might Help Towards Effecting Domestic Reconciliation

GAQL SENTENCE FOR WOMAN WHO mmM^

(From "N.Z. Truth's"' Special Wellington, Representative.) ' " . IF ORIGINALITY IN NARRATIVE, and consummate belief m the credulity of jurymen, count for much m securing the acquittal of prisoners, the charge against Marion ICoerbin should have collapsed long before Sir Charles Sim uttered the opening sentence of his jury charge m the Wellington Supreme Court last week. It seems incredible that a woman should attempt to persuade a jury that when she put rat poison m her husband's food, she did it solely with the intention of bringing about a reconciliation. The jury were not convinced, however, and the woman has been sentenced to three months' imprisonment.

IZOBRBIN, a flurried, hi&hly-strung, J\. little man, afflicted with a distressing flair^for tripping the final sounds of one word over the commencement of its successor, gave his evidence so hurriedly as to merit a repeated rebuke from Judge Sim. Standing erect m the box, his head thrown slightly back, he related the succession ' of unfortunate incidents which beset Mb family life,, from the date of his marriage to Marion Paterson m 1912, up to the time of her arrest on June 26, 1928, some sixteen years later. A continued pall of unhappiness seems to have overshadowed their partnership; as they were separated on three occasions, whilst the disgruntled, dissatisfied attitude ascribed to Mrs. , Koerbin by her husband does not appear to have added one particle of amity to the relationship. Whether, as Mrs. Koerbin suggested, the meanness of her husband was the keener blade which made such a deep incision through the link of family affections as to sever it completely; or whether she suffered the delusion that her husband was a wealthy, yet cheeseparing, man who derived some satisfaction from watching her struggle along oni.a small weekly house allowance, is not a matter for comment or even speculation. That, however, was the inference she subscribed to the lengthy testimony adduced before a jury m the Wellington Supreme Court last week. But whatever the ca,uso, and no matter what the 'family circumstances may have been, there was I no justification for her introducing rat poison and ground glass m his . food. , To , the original lower court charge of attempting to murder her husband, was added a further indictment of" administering poison with the intent to injure or annby her husband, Herbert Koerbin. The jury acquitted her on the major count, but deemed her guilty of the leaser 1 , adding a strong plea for olem? enc'y. The methods she adopted are already familiar,- and it is unnecessary, therefore, to burden the story with a reiteration of" incidents and ciroumstances pendant to her apprehension by Detective- sergeants Holmes and Thompson, early on the morning' of June 26, when they watched her pouring liquified rat poison into his porridge.

Humorous Twists

To the Registrar's: "How say you, are you guilty or not guilty?" she responded, with utter composure: "Not guilty," her v thin; 'subdued voice m keeping with her .slight,, almost frail, figure. ■' Despite the gravity of the situation, there were one or two humorous little twists, too, particularly m respect of the six- weeks- old * exhibits strewn along the aisle m front of the jury benches. At one end of the litter of boxes, bottles, packets and jars of decayed food, sat Detective-sergeant Holmes, wincing each time a. different article of food was brought before the court, and looking for all the world as though he were being slowly tipped over the edge of some Herculean cesspit. As soon as Koerbin . had ooncluded his testimony, defending counsel, LavrF'r "Arohie" Sievwright, commenced sweeping tirade of declarations against him and his treatment of Mrs. Koerbin during the earlier year* of their married life. . He imputed that Koerbin had brutally ill-treated hia wife, almost from the day they were marriedj ao strongly did counsel focus the court's attention on the subject of Koerbin's earlier behavior that his ■-■ honor at length .jrule.d, 'such evidence to be inadmissible and would not countenance its inclusion. Sir ■ Charles Sim reminded counsel that the more strongly, he denounced Koerbin, the more vile he attempted to prove Koerbin's early behavior towards his wife,, so equally was Mrs. Koerbin's defence weakened by thf> suggestion that she was justified m attempting to remove her husband by poisoning him. Lawyer Sieywright (to Koerbin) : Now, with regard to this story of yours that you were ill at Christmas time. You were a frequent visitor to Khandallah . and Petone, weren't you? —Yes, phoe or twice I was a visitor therer. ;'■, \ . ■ ■■' ■;. ; * ■. . \ And you always took- a bag out there?— Not/always; frequently. Didn't you tei,l your wife you were taking liquor out to parties?-— Yea, m a similar strain to that. ' During that, period* you saw little of your wife. You got away early m the morning, and stayed out till late at night, sometimes' till early rhorning?—Yes, I was glad to get out of •her sight, but I was always home before 11.30, ..'. • '■:• After one of these gatherings, you came'home and told your wife you had stopped at a pie-cart?— Yes. And that you had eaten a couple of pies?— l' brought one home. The judge: "Answer that* question 1 — No, I didn't say that. ' . Counsel: Where did you eat that pie ? •—ln the kitchen. , • "■■■■. ; . ' ;■"• Did you tell your wife you had never eaten such "a rotten pie" ?r— Yes. Did you make' the. remark: "Isn't it wonderful what a man can eat, after he has had drink— almost anything? And as a consequence, of that night, you were vomiting?— No. , .' i ' That vomiting was caused by overindulgence m liquor?— No. „ Has- anyone ever seen you vomiting? —No. '•■ . ■•"'. •■'■;: ' ' ■' -. ' '.'. . Then this' story of yours. about the vomiting' can be [■ corroborated by no one?— That is right. - ; ' And if the jury believes it, they must rely upon your story alone? — Yes. ,;V.-: :■■■■'■ ''. -■ ' '. ; ; : Qdunsei then referred to an incident when Koerbin was alleged to have smashed m the door of his wife's bedroom; but the bench warned Lawyer Sievwright that he was again on forbidden ground and should refrain from attempting to introduce subjects, which.

had no relevanoy m the charges before the jury,. .■■■'.■ Counsel (to witness): If your wife swears that you went through her boxes every, day, prying and rummaging around, would you deny it?— Certainly! : On June 19 you found the powdered glass, didn't you?— Yes. And a day afterwards you took the tripe to the analyst, who found powdered glass m the food? — Yes. I suggest to you, Koerbin, that you put that glass into the tripe! Is not that a fact?— lt is not.' - - The only people who could have put that ground glass into your food, were Mrs. Koerbin and yourself?— Yes.: His honor (smiling slightly): "Is that so!" • After the two detectives, together with the three analysts who examined the .food submitted to them by Koerbin, had been called as witnesses for the Crown, Mrs. Koerbin left the dock and walked down the aisle of the court! Entering the witness-box, she was duly sworn. A short, thin, narrow-shouldered, sharp-featured Scotswoman, her ncr-

vously clasped hands and thin, quavering voice; her responses to many of the questions so quietly enunciated that the judge and his associates were scarcely able to hear her— it seemed difficult to believe that this slight, almost shrinking little woman could have conceived the diabolical scheme of which she had been accused. ,■ She stoutly repudiated any suggestion of murderous intent and— extraordinary as it may seem, m face -of her remarkable admissions to Detective-sergeant Holmes, when he and Detective-sergeant Thompson caught her m the, act of serving adulterated porridge to her husband — she. declared that her sole reason for acting m the way she did was that reconciliation might be effected between her and Koerbin. . Nor would she agree that she was. discontented, that she was always complaining about not receiving sufficient money from her husband. In the early part 'of her married life she did not get any money at all, she said, and it was only latterly that she had, ceased to find any legitimate grounds : f or complaint on that score,

as the magistrate had made an order, against Koerbin.,. . ■ . Her husband, she asserted, was a ; most disagreeable, cantankerous man, who would say: ."You -got the best of me at court, but I'll get the best of you, now' we're home .>. . It's a pastime fop me to torment you. . ."; Never, never had she any desire to rid herself of Koerbin; so that she might acquire his money and the, insurance; policy for £1000 on- his life. Counsel. Sievwright: Who first made the suggestion of rat poison?— My husban/i. He said to me: "My friends tell me, 'Why don't you give that woman a dose of rat poison or hit her on the head with, a hammer'?" y . About a month ago, she saw the rat poison m a grocer's shop, so she purchased a tin, so ; that her husband should see 1 it arid po that it. would encourage him to treat her better; to show him that, if she wished, .she could retaliate. But she had no intention of using it. She took, the tin and hung it m the scullery, where he couldl see it, but she

could not say whether he had observed It hanging there? lie still continued his ill-treatment of her. At length "she emptied "the tin and placed the contents m her. suitcase, m a place where she knew he was bound to see it, ''as he was always prying intq her boxes and other personal effects. • ...... • The reason why she had taken the poison out of the tin was so that her husband would not see the label, which notified the public that the poison was dangerous. ■'• * . ' The judge: "It was deadly to rats, at any rate!" , Counsel:. "No one suggested th^t Mr. Koerbin was a rat, sir." "I wanted him to think that, if I liked,/ I could retaliate for his illtreatment of me," continued Mrs. Koerbin. . . < "I knew, he had taken almost all of it out of my suitcase, and I knew also that he was watchingme through the slide ' : .;. I 'saw him watching- me. "I allowed him to see me put some m the pprridge, v jbut I didn't . expect him to eat it. I mixed 'some m his porridge on two occasions only, once about a month before Jxme 26, and the, second time: when the detectives were looking through' the slide. ' ,

"I expected him to come to me saying:, 'What's this?'' and I would then have said:. ' Let us come to, an understanding; this is not the; way for' us to go on.' I wanted to do this for the sake of the children. • '„ ' ' "But' he didn't do that. (| ■■'..■"' "Never at any time) other than those two I have said, 'did I .put anything In, his food, and if any was found m the chops, or fish, he must have put it there, with the stuff he took out of my suitcase." ■ - " " ". His honor: How didyou come, to have powdered glass m the house?— l just had it there (a long pause) „".-■. to frighten him. - ;. That is not the thing a woman usually keeps m the house, is it? — (Si--lerice, until . . „ ) I put It alongside the white powder for him. to see. „ "T.o keep each. other company, as it were?" (No response). . , "I had n6 Intention of injuring, or annoying him, In ■ anyi way. In any case, I had reduced the strength, so that it would not do him any harm," Mrs. Koerbin, said, /some moments, later. • ,' . : ■•■ \;: , '. Crown Prosecutor Macassay: If you wanted to frighten him, why did you throw away :the<. tin, on which was marked: "Deadly Exterminator."' Can you explain that?— Wjell, I thought it best to throw it away. , But if your object was that of frightening him, why didn't you leave the tin lying about, Instead of throwing it iiito the rubbish r bln m Courtenay Place? I .put it to you that you put it there, so that it would never be discovered? — No. The judge: Did you carry, the tin to Austin Street, empty the contents -into a piece of paper and then take the tin back to Courtenay Place, and throw it m the rubbish-bin there? — Yes. Did you powder the glass?r-Yes. What f or?—i(A lengthy silence .' . . and no response). Urn?— l thought It might frighten him off. ' The Crown Prosecutor: Do you suggest that the, mere sight of that glass m your box would lead him to, believe that you were putting glass m his food?— Yes. You sent the boy .out with this porridge containing rat poison, to give to your- husband? — But I didn't expect him to eat It, as I knew the slide was up and that I. was be^ng watched.

Wasting Poison ?

Will -you please tell us why you didn't tell the. detectives all this; that you didn't intend to poison your husband, but merely. "Wished to-, frighten him?— l didn't want to tell them any-_ thing until I had seen my solicitor. \ You believed your ' husband had money, didn't you?— l knew he had . . . I helped him get it. "How much do you think ■he is worth?" . / • "•: His' honor: Do you really believe he is worth £50,000?— Well, he used to say he was worth £50,000 and 1 was getting £100 a week m rents. "He' threatened to kill me," the woman ' declared passionately, "and because of that, I thought if I put rat poison m his food it would show him there was more than 'one way of re- | taliation. I thought he would be afraid, if he saw poison about the place. . . "Since I got that maintenance order^ he has been more like a lunatic than anything else." . . ' . '- Lawyer Slevwrighf.- What was youi definite belief as to the effect of this white pdwder upon a human being? — I believed it was quite harmless. Did you want him to, know that?--No. . . . y/~" ':.,■ In his address to the jury, Lawyer Sievwright observed that no doubt the actions of Mrs. Koerbin had been particularly foolish arid it ■ 'would have been more .advisable 1 for her to have taken out separation proceedings. That, however, was not her objective. -What she wanted was a complete establishment of decent feelings between herself and her husband, for the benefit of their two children. She was prepared to take what* she thought was the only step m obtaining that objective; she therefore made a gesture which would have the effect of causing him to approach her with a ,view to furthering a reconciliation. „ ra The expert evidence before the court showed tnat— save m large quantities —the particular poison known as barium carbdnate was not dangerous. The v Crown Prosecutor contended that the defence raised was one of- the most extraordinary ever . submitted: to a jury. "Gentlemen, was that likely to bring about a reconciliation . . . the putting of rat poison m his food? i ■ "Do you think that If you found your wives putting rat poison m your food, that would v be likely to bring about a. reconciliation? "The reason why Mrs. Koerbin threwaway that tin m Courtenay Place, was so that if her husband was poisoned, there would be nothing m the way of evidence against her." "Well, gentlemen," began his honor, "there have been gestures— . 'and gestures— since, the world began, but I should imagine that this gesture of Mrs. Koerbin's was one of the most extraordinary it would be possible to find. V ' >"That a woman should make. a gesture towards reconciliation, by putting poison m her husband's' porridge— that is ; the explanation . which yoUj as men of common-sense, are asked to accept. "You are asked to believe that this was some little comedy, being enacted by her m the kitchen . . .! "Boiled down, her explanation means that she was wasting good porridge— and good rat poison." (Loud laughter from the r,ear of the court.) The jury were away exactly 47 minutes. When <■ the • foreman announced • their decision, the; accused woman gave no outward sign, but simply turned away and descended the steps leading ,to the little cell-like jroom beneath the prisoners' dock.