ALLEGED NEGLECT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 106, 29 January 1919, Page 8

ALLEGED NEGLECT

PARENTS OF ADOPTED CHILD CHARGED A charge of wilfully neglecting an adopted child (Francis Gordon Godfrey Stewart) in such a manner as to cause it unnecessary suffering and injury to its health, was preferred against Robert Henry Nelson Stewart and Maml Evangcline Stewart, before Air. V. V.'Frazer, S.M., at the jingistrave's Court yester-'Police-Inspector K. Jlarsack conducted I the .prosecution, and Mr. U. 1 , . O'Leary j appeared for the defendants. ! lu opening the case for the prosecu- ] tion Inspector Jfnrsiick stated (hot (lie child was brought before HJ3 Worship on December 5 and committed to ft receiving home, pendiiiß the hearing of the present charge. When the child was taken to the police station it wus'weignect, and though it was 44 years old, it only weighed 261b. Siiico December a the child remained at the receiving home and was brought out yesterday, when it was again weighed on the same scales and in the same clothing. The child now weighed 331b., an increase of 25 per cent, iu a little over a month. J. here was another child in the house, but this one was well cared for. Dr. Clay, in evidence, stated that on December' i he visited the home of tho defendants nud examined the child Godfrey Stewart. It was lying on a h'lny mattress which was very damp. J'lia child was clothed only in a short tattered shirt, - and the only bed-clothed were a couple of pieces ot blaukot. The child was ill-nourished and dirty, the dirt being cnlced on the hands and feet. Witness considered it hia.duf.y to advise the police, for the condition the child was in was a danger to its life. Twentysix pounds wns fur too light for a child lour years of aj;<j—its weight should be about 4'211>. To Jlr. O'Leary: Witness did not think that the child was miffuring from consumption of the .bowels. In any case ho did not consider that the child had had any chance at nil. The condition of the house dining the epidemic could not lie expected to be the same as in normal times. . _ ■ In answer to a question as to thn I shilo of Iho bed, witness silid: "i v.'Oil Id not have put a dog to sleep in that bed." Witness said that he had been called to the .house to examine another child who was sniieriiijr from influenza. There was no ■ comparison between, the condition of the second child, a littlo girl 'A oi , 4 years of nge, and the littlo boy in question. One wim well nourished and Iliß other dirty, neglected,' lind coweil in spirit. . Marjory Hulbert stnted that in her capacity "us emergency helper during the epidemic period, she visited defendants' house. She saw Mrs. Stewart and called her attention to the filthy etate of the little boy nml his lied. The window was closed, but was opened at witness's aug gestion. Witness visited tho house several times subsequently, nnd each time found the little boy in the ennip condition. Although witness was told that the child was suffering from influenzn, ehe hold tne opinoin that it-was suffering from neßlect. Mrs. Stewart was- in no way pleased with the help given her during the epidemic period, and referred to the helpers in objectionable language. Aβ witness considered Mrs. Stowart to be quite well nnd capable to look after the child, she did not do anything for him. Isabella Hulbert stated that ehe vifited the home of the defendants in H Epuni Street with Dr. Clay. Witness would not like to see a child of hers in euch a condition. The child had marks on its thigh and on one of ife anus which seomed like bruises. Lilian Mny Thompson, who lived next door to the defendants, stated that she saw tlw child whenever he wna out, and that was not very often. He was olways in a filthy condition, and always appenred to be'very hungry. She hnd often given the child food. To Mr. O'Leary : The child was always ravenously -hungry. Mary Jane Cluin, qualified nurse, stated that she saw the child when it was very weak and ill and in a shocking condition. The child wns in a filthy condition, and was lying on eacks. Witness said that the sueko wero not fit to he used fopsnclf a purpose. .She considered that the treatment the child wns receiving was not improving, its health. To Jlr. O'Leiiry: There was no mattress on the bed. Tho condition of the bed was, not fit to receive any child. She did hot spo any blankets qii the bed.' Amcilia Belhvorthy, secretary to the Society for tho Protection, of Women and Children, stated that when she visited defendants' home uhe found the child very badly bruised. It, wns bruised about the epine. Sho reported the matter to the police. In her opinion thu child had been neglected. To Mr. O'Leary: The police investigated the ense when witness reported on it, but no action was taken. J?or the defence, Mr. O'Leary stated tnat the charge was a serious one, not only from the point of view of the penalty which might be inflicted, if the defendants Were convicted, but also the etignm thai would result to their characters. ( He contended, before a conviction could be recorded, that it would have to be proved that neglect was dotiberalo and wilfully v 'done, and not through accident: When the child was received by defendants it was six weekn oil.*; and in a very weak condition. It was not n heitlthy child. When the child was seen in a dirty condition such condition was not due to wilful neglect. Mrs. Stewart was ill ut the timo and was not able to give it that attention which she otherwise would have given. Both defendants contracted tho influenza, nnd tho child was also ill with the disease. Called for (he defence, Elsie Evelyn Barrett, who was an emergency helper during the epidemic, said that she visited the defendants' house in the early stages of the epidemic and saw the child in question. In her opinion it wae not Buffering from the epidemic, but was certainly ailing. It appeared to be a weakling. She considered that the child looked better when she saw it than it did now. To Inspector Jlarsack: The boy was in a beautiful bed. There were no signs of dirty saokh or dirty bedding. . Dr. J. S. Elliott stated that he examined the child on one occasion. He appeared to be a delicate child for his age, and witness was not impressed that the child's condition was anything serious. The child was suffering from malnutrition, and he prescribed for it. It was light for its age and waa frail. There were no outward signs of neglect or ill-treatment. To Inspector Marsack: AVitness stated that malnutrition could be brought about by neglect or ill-treatment. In witness's, opinion the child had improved a great deal more than he wojiM have expected since it had been at the Keeeiving Home. To the Magistrate: Witness hnd often seen children like the one in question. On the circumstances of the parents depended the development of the child. W. ,T. ITaiiies, collector, stated that he had been a rcguiau , visitor to the home of the defendants, and he always noticed that the child was well cared for. To him thc-re did not appear to be any difference between the treatment given to defendant's, own c-hil'J and the adopted one. In his opinion the child in this case was better attended to than defendant's own child. James Kowe, labourer, said he lived near the defendants, and he was not aware, that the <:l>ild in the ca=e was nn adopted child. The child appeared to 1)3 well cared, for. The child was ill on occasions, but received proper attention. The cot -which the child occupied wns properly equipped—mattress, sheets, and blankets. There was a piece of sacking above the mattress to protect it. At this stage of the proceedings the case w.i; adjourned till 2.15 p.m. to-day.