ALLEGED NEGLECT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 107, 30 January 1919, Page 6

ALLEGED NEGLECT

TREATMENT OF A CHILD CASE DISMISSED . CHILD TO GO TO ANOTHER HOME The case in which Robert Henry Nelson Stewart and Maud Evangeline Stewart were jointly charged with wilfully neglecting their adopted child in such a manner as to cause it suffering and injury to its health was. concluded before Mr. F, V. Frazer, S.M., at the Magistrate's 'Court yesterday. Inspector Morsack conducted the case for the police, and Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for the defendant. In continuation of the ens'; for the defence, Robert Henry Nelson Stewart, corporation employee, was called. He stated that he adopted the child in 19U. The child was very weak, and remained in a delicate condition right up to the time it was removed by the police. The child was often examined by doctors, and prescribed for, and wns weighed on numerous occasions. It had suffered from bowel trouble, and received medical treatment for this complaint. When it was first taken in it slept in a dress basket' till a cot was obtained. The cot wae purchased in 1915, and the bedding consisted of a knpoc matlrass, a piece of American cloth, a blanket then as a covering two blankets and a rug. There wns a email piece of sacking over the mattress to protect it. The Health Inspector objected to tho sacking, and recommended American cloth. There wos no difference between the treatment of the adopted child and their own child. During the influenza epidemic the house did not receive the attention that it would have otherwise received. Mrs. Stewart was ill, and he, too, was somewhat sick, but had to work. Emergency helpers called, but he wns able to look after the children. Dr. Elliott examined the child on the same day as Dr. Clay, bu: some hours later. He did not wash tho body of the child before taking it to Dr. Elliott. Only the hands were washed, as they were grubby. Witness had attended to all instructions he had received from the doctors and others. When Miss Hulbert called she. said the child must go to the hospital, but accused refused to let it go as he was quite able to look after it.

To Inspector Marsack: When tho child was adopted a premium of was paid. It was adopted to be company for Mrs, Stewart, and whon their own child was born the adopted child received the same attention and care. The bedding was not in a filthy condition. Inspector Marsabk: The doctor has told us that the dirt was caked on tho adopted child, but your own child was clean. How was that?

Accused: Both children were washed at tho same time. I did not see dirt caked on tho child.

Would you be surprised to know that since the child has been in the receiving home it has only wet its bed hvico?— "Well, it did it every night when it was with ns."

Did the Health Inspector tell you your house was beastly dirty ?—"lt was. 1 admitted it."

Did ho not also tell you that the child's cot had an offensive smell?— "No, lie did not soy that. He objected to thu sacking, and recommended improvements."

To Mr. O'Leary: When'the Health Inspector called Mrs. Stewart was ill, and Mrs. Quinn was looking after the house. When the inspector called again ho admitted that the house was much cleaner. When they originally adopted the child, the Salvation Army officials said it was certainly a weak child, but had a healthy skin, and from appearances would develop into a healthy boy. Mnud Kvangeline Stewart corroborated the evidence given by her husband. To Inspector Marsack: She washed the boy two and three times a day, and bathed him twice a week. The child received plenty to cat. She could not explain why (he child always appeared to Miss Thompson to bo very hungry. . •

To the Magistrate: She was annoyed with the visit of the emergency helpers because she had been upset by the frequency of the visits of the representatives of the Society for the Protection of Women and Children.

Laura Kom'c, wife of a previous witness, said that she had observed the child, and found it to be properly cared for, although it was weafclv. Witness had charge of the child for tliree months, and found that it suffered from bowel trouble.

Ispector Marsack: Do you remember saying to Sergeant M'Loan when he called on you: "We and the Stewarts belong to the.Orange Lodge, and we cannot very well go ngainstthem"?—"l cannot remember having said that." To the. Magistrate: The child was certainly a little dirty, but witness did not see any other sign of neglect. Other evidence was' called for tjhe defence, and the matron of tho Receiving Home,' Helen Holmes, gave evidence as to how the child had improved whilst at the home-, and that it was not suffering from any disease. This concluded the evidence, and in summing up His Worship said that (he evidence was very voluminous and very contradictory. It appeared to him. that tho child had been found in a very neglected state at times, and complaints had come to the notice of tho Society for the Protection of Women and Children. At other'times tho child appeared to have been well looked after. The experience of the matron of the Deceiving Home was suggestive of past generol neglect. She had not noticed anything very wrong with tho child other than it was a weakling. No special treatment had been given the child whilst at the home. His Worship was satisfied that the child had been neglected, partly from tho direct evidence and partly from the faot that it had put on seven pounds in weight in seven weeks whilst at the Beceiviny Home. It was evident that the child was not suffering from any disease. If it had not been neglected it would not havo put on seven pounds in weight in seven weeks with ordinary caro. He would not say that the child was nlwnys neglected, but it had been neglected, although the neglect was not wilful or deliberate. He wns inclined to think that much of the nexlect was due to Mrs.- Stewart's ilj. health. He did not think-that the child should go.back to its old surroundings It would bo better olf where it was now. There had been neglect, but lie could not enter a conviction ■on the charge. The information would be dismissed. His Worship was prepared to .commit the child to a home under the,lndustrial Schools Act, but settlement of this was held over.