ALLEGED CRUELTY AT THE INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL.

Evening Star, Issue 4287, 22 November 1876, Page 3

ALLEGED CRUELTY AT THE INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL.

(Per Star Pigeon Exprtu.)

The inquiry into the alleged illtreatnient of the girl Mary Doig, at the Industrial School, on Sunday evening last, took place at the Institution at 3 o'clock this afternoon, I before Messrs Strode and Watt, CommisJsioners. About twenty of the public at- ; tended. Jeremiah Doig, the girl's father, said his witnesses were Conway, Mr Coutts, Mr and Mrs Boumann, witness, his wife, and the girl. Mr A. Bathgate : Before the proceedings' ■go further, 1 may state I am instructed by :Mr M'J£eay to watch the proceedings oi the inquiry on behalf of the girl's parents. I have to ask that I may be allowed to crossexamine the witnesses just as if the inquiry was made by a Court of Justice. Mr Strode: I don't see how we can possibly accede to your request. It is in the nature of an inquiry—a mere inquiry - and we are called upon to report to the Government the result of our inquiry. It is for the Government to take any steps afterwards they think fit, and we have no jurisdiction here as magistrates, as you know, Mr Bathgate. Mr Watt: It is a mere inquiry for the information of the Government, therefore we cannot possibly accede to your request. Mr Bathgate : Still I may be permitted to point out that at inquests, which are mere preliminary inquiries, people are frequently represented by counsel. Mr Strode: The Coroner has legal discretionary power. • Mr Bathgate : I apprehend the Government are anxious that full inquiry sheuld be made, and this can only be done in crossexamining. Mr Strode : The Government, if they see fit, can take proceedings in a Court of Justice afterwards.

Mr Watt: I must traverse the statement that it is always done in Courts of Justice. At an inquiry I challenged Mr Barton and Mr James Smith to show by what authority they appeared, and they were unable to: show cause.

The Commissioners pointed out that they had no authority to take the evidence of witnesses on oath—they were not a Royal Commission.

Mary Doig, ten years old, was the- first witness. She Btated that for six nights she had been handcuffed. The "hobbles" were placed on her legs at eight o'clock at night and removed in the morning. On the Sunday everyone went out for a walk, and she forced the handcuffs from the leg of the bed and made away home with them tied to her leg. She broke the leg of the bed in order to effect her escape, and wrenched away the handcuffs. When she reached her father's home Mr RusseL of the institution, and a policeman came for her. ,

Mr Watt: Do you know why Mr Titchener did not take you out with the other boys and girls ? The Witness: I think it was because I ran away twice before. My leg was cut by trying to get through a window to escape. The sore was healing, when the handcuff made it worse. [The witness contradicted herself by saying the handcuff was not placed on the sore leg.] [The Commissioners permitted Mr Bathgate, in order to give him an opportunity for full inquiry, to put his questions through them].

Patrick Conway, laborer, living in Filleul street: I was in Doig's house on Sunday night last when the girl came in with her mother. I saw the handcuffs and chains oh the girl's leg, and said, " Jenny, who put those on you ? " She replied that the master put them en. He noticed the sore on her leg. The sore was on the right leg, the handcuff on the left. She said the chain caused the sore. (The handcuffs were of the ordinary nature, but were double—two sets linked together.) Benjamin Coates, bricklayer, gave corroborative evidence. He said the girl's sock had worked down into the boot, and the handcuff was on the bare flesh.

Thomas Bowman, bricklayer, was next examined. His evidence was to the same effect. The cham produced he said was not the one the girl had on. It was a single handcuff. e

The inquiry cannot close this evening. It is being conducted in the dining-room.