WIFE GOES FOR TRIAL

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 411, 20 July 1928, Page 16

WIFE GOES FOR TRIAL

CHARGE OF ATTEMPTED MURDER NO CASE, COUNSEL CONTENDS Press Association. WELLINGTON, Thursday. Pleading not guilty to the charge of the attempted murder of her husband, Herbert Koerbin, Marion Koerbin, aged 43, was committed to the Supreme Court for trial this afternoon. Detective Sergeant Holmes, said that he took a statement from the accused in which she said that the powdered glass found in a locked box under her bed had been there for a long time. She had not used it nor the oxalic acid in her husband’s food. The powder in the bottle found in her pocket was not poison.

Accused showed no signs of mental trouble. She stated that her husband was worth £60,000, and that his meanness was the cause of all the trouble in the home. Dr. James S. McLaurin, Dominion analyst, stated that he made an analysis of samples of food handed to him by detectives. With three exceptions—the boys porridge, the oatmeal and the roast mutton and cabbage—all the samples contained barium carbonate, which, witness added, was sometimes given medicinally. He found no ground glass in the exhibits. Asked what ground glass would do to a person witness said it would have a very irritating effect and would probably prove fatal if take nin sufficient quantities.

At the conclusion of the hearing of the evidence, Mr. A. B. Sievwright, counsel for Mrs. Koerbin, submitted that there was no case to go to a jury and the court, he contended, would not be justified in committing accused for trial. No evidence had been given which could be justifiably construed by a jury to find the accused guilty of attempted murder. “I do submit,” he said, -that on that ground the court is justified In discharging the accused.”

“Why do you say that. What is Nour foundation?” asked Mr. E. Page,

Counsel said his foundation was two-fold. No evidence had been given to show that the accused desired to murder her husband. The onus was on the prosecution, firstly to prove that she had a desire to cause his death. Secondly, the evidence showed quite clearly that the administration or attempted administration of food containing barium carbonate was in insufficient quantities to cause any narm. It was innocuous in this quanuty even if Koerbin had taken it. rrom the analyst's report it had ->een seen that in no instance was there sufficient to cause death. In no o nCe ' a ™ ons aII the food submitted tor analysis, was there a greater amount than 21.9 grains of barium carbonate, a third of what was referaS a minim tim fatal dose, tail! p [ opose to discuss thedesel W 1?° ° bjections raised bycounthe Simply to say that in my view war* * 1S one which must go fort , consideration by a jury ” was the magistrate’s reply. commuted ?' ea t ? ed „ not SuUty and was uiaJ. “ t 0 the Su Preme Court for