CHILD’S ARMS BROKEN

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8358, 19 February 1913, Page 10

CHILD’S ARMS BROKEN

FOUR PERSONS CHARGED WITH CRUELTY. LONDON, January 12. Four persons were at Birmingham committed for trial on a serious charge, brought by the N.S.P.C.C. They were Mary Stride, 61, St. George’s road, Hay Mill, and John Stride, her husband, charged with alltreating and neglecting their children, aged two years and six month*, and one year and tne ten months, respectively, Chrles Henry Wall, and Harriett Wall, his wife, both of the above address. The case has been several times before the court, and at a previous hearing Dr Jordan Lloyd stated that in the case of the little girl every bone in both arms had been broken. The fractures were caused by violence, and he did not think it was possible that they could have been caused by the child falling. The child was suffering intense paid, and she would probably die. It was further stated that the little boy’s arms were also broken. Mrs Stride, in the witness-box, at one of the previous hearings, denied that the children had been neglected. The little girl met with her injuries by falling down. She herself did not see the child fall, but Mrs Wall told her that she had. She noticed a bulge on the child’s right arm, and thought it was a sprain, and they rubbed it with embrocation. Until the little boy was removed by the inspector she had no idea that he was suffering from any injuries. Mr Norris Foster, who had contended that the condition of the child might easily have been caused accidentally, and declared that Mrs Wall had acted as a humane woman and might well havo been ignorant of the broken bones, continued nis examination of the defendant, Charles Henry Wall, who gave a denial to the charge of intentional cruelty. The children were in a bad condition, and were weak when they were brought to his house. His wife and he provided the children with all they wanted. He assumed that the injuries to the little girl must have been caused by falling about through weakness. There had been no difference in the treatment of the children and his own, and the latter were kind to the others. During the whole time the children had been at his house everything passible had been done for them. TREATED BETTER THAN HER OWN. Harriet Wall stated that she had six children of her own, and they were all healthy and strong, and always had been. Mrs Stride’s children were treated just the same as her own—in fact, better, if anything, for they had bread and milk for breakfast, whereas her own had bread and butter. When the child Elizabeth came to the bouse she could not walk, but after three weeks became stronger and began to walk. She could walk up to the time she was taken to the hospital. Mrs Stride used to look after the children before she went to work. She returned af dinner time, and they all sat down together at dinner. The children were given food between meals. The child Lizzie could feed herself. Witness had made a complaint to the mother that the child Lizzie was weak and ought to see a doctor, and Mrs Stride told her that her mother and father had died consumptive. It was because witness’s husband insisted that the child was taken to the hospital by Mrs Stride. Witness and the others had no idea that the children’s arms were broken, and she was surprised when informed of the fact by the inspector. Cross-examined by Mr Hall-Wright, witness said that Mrs Stride did her best under the circumstances. She denied that Mrs Stride had had any drink on the night the inspectors visited the house. Mr Wright contended that there was no evidence of cruelty against Mrs Stride. There was nothing to prove any violence on her part, or even knowledge that the children’s arms were broken. The stipendiary said the case was one for a jury to decide. The four defendants were committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions. The stipendiary granted a certificate for legal aid for the defendants under the Poor Prisoners’ Defence Act, and allowed them bail.