NEGLECT OF A CHILD.

Otago Witness, Issue 2813, 12 February 1908, Page 17

NEGLECT OF A CHILD.

A SCANDALOUS! CASE.

(Fbom Our Own Cobrespondext.) AUCKLAND, February 4-.

A sordid case, peculiarly apropos in view of the present movement in Auckland to form a branch of the Infant. Life Protection Society, and also significant in face of a medical man's pronouncement as to "not-wanted" children, was before Mr Kettle, S.M., at the Police Court yesterday. The case was opened last week, when Frances Gerald Bailey and Marion Bailey, for whom Mr Glaister appeared, were charged with neglecting a child in their custody so as to cause it unnecessary suffering. The evidence on that occasion alleged that defendants had adopted a child, which they received- through answering an advertisement, for which service a good premium was to be paid. Yesterday Constable Dunn stated in evidence that, in company with Nurse Sinclair, he visited the house and asked for the child. He was shown, the room where it was lying on a double bed, and he found the infant in a filthy condition. On the occasion of his 'visit Mrs Bailey was stupidly drunk, and on the previous day he had also seen her under the influence of liquor. In his opinion, the child could not have lived much longer under the circumstances. In reply to the magistrate, the constable eaid that, as a father of nine children, he was shocked at the condition of the child. Nurse Sinclair burst into tears when she saw the condition under which the child was existing. The room was in a filthy condition. He had the infant taken to his own house, where it was washed and dressed. It took 20 minutes to wash the child. Nurse Baker, keeper of a licensed nursing home, stated that she had had three years and a-half experience in nursing. The infant came into the home on Saturday, January ♦, and became sick the following Wednesday. It appeared to be in good condition and healthy when brought into the home, but showed signs of illness on the following day, and died on Sunday, January 12. She had had a large number of children in her home, but this was the first that had died in her charge. In answer to Mr Kettle the witness said that there was a growing disinclination on the part of mothers to rear their children in a natural way. The mother of the child was then called. She stated that she had not made any arrangements with the defendants as to payment for the child. It was taken away immediately after its birth, and she made arrangements with Nurse Sinclair to advertise, with instructions to set it a good home. The father of the child was present when it was born, and made arrangements to pay the adoption fees of £25 and all expertises, but he had gone bankrupt since, and no money was paid to the Baileys. Witness could not keep the child, as 6Jie had to work. The mother of tffe previous witness then gave evidtence. Nurse , Sincair, she said, made arrangements with defendants, who took away the child immediately after birth. Subsequently witness visited Bailey's house and told them she had come for the child, as the fee could not be paid that day. Defendants said their solicitor had advised them to stick to the child until they crot the £25. "If I I had my way." she had replied, "you j would not get 25 pence." She did not con- i eider the Baileys suitable people to have the infant. Dr Ferguson, who was present at the birth, said there was no reason why the mother could not have reared the child ' naturally, but it was healthy enough to have lived on artificial food. In reply to i Mr Kettle the witness 6aid that from the general description of the treatment of the child he would say it had been neglected, i When he was called in prior to the death the child was suffering from gastric enteritis and jaundice, which might have been caused by neglect or inappropriate feeding. In reply to Mr Glaister, the witness said that during the present summer cases had been known of babies, .both naturally and artificially fed and carefully nursed, dying 1 of the complaint that bad been mentioned. Mr Kettle 6aid he had heard a lot of harrowing child cases, but this appeared to be the most scandalous he had heard. He thought that on the evidence so far all concerned were liable | to be arraigned. Francis Gerald Bailey was then placed in the box. He stated that he was a commission ajarent, and came six months ago from Queensland. He was not married to the female defendant^ whose real name was Mrs Myers. He was a married man with a family. They saw the advertisement in the paper, and as the female defendant was anxious to adopt it he applied for the child. It was not hie wish that thay should reecive it. Nurse Sinclair asked if he would take the child without any money. If so, he was to come at once. He went down and told Nurse Sinclair he would. The female defendant took the child away, it being stated that

£25 would be paid. He went to a chemist | and bought a bottle and some food. He j did not know much about children, and in- . quired from neighbours as to the best I means of feeding it. The grandmother j came, and was much concerned about arrangements having been made without her consent. Next day she came again,/ and said the father would pay £10, and i more in instalments. He (defendant) wanted to adhere to the original arrangement, or else legally adopt the child without payment. She became very much excited, and a scene occurred in the shop. The female defendant- had been unwell on that date, and" he .gave her some whisky. He was present when the baby was washed at 9 o'clock on Saturday morning. He was about all the morning, because ehe was ill, and he sent for a woman. " He assured the magistrate they had done the best possible for the child. -Cross-examined' by Sub-inspector Gordon, defendant eaid he met the female defendant in Melbourne. He came out of gaol last" July, having served 18 months. He did not want the child, and had not taken" it for- the sake of the premium. It was not true that the female defendant was in-^ft constant state of intoxication. Evidehce was x_ also given by the female defendant, who' 1 said she was in great pain on the Friday night. 'She washed the child on the Saturday morning. The whisky she took had made her sick, and she was not * drunk, but w*£ ill and exejted. She had asked Nurse Sitfelair if it was proper to take so young a _£hild". She denied that the bed and blanket "were soiled. The premium was no attraction. James Murray M'Kerras, commission, a-gent, deposed to having, visited the Baileys about the time in question, and noticed) that the female defendant was not we)]. She showed no signs of drink. He had! known her about four years, and had never known her to be intoxicated. Mr Kettle said he would reserve hie decision. There was no question but that this child was treated in a most scandalous manner. He could not say whether the proper people were before the court. He thought the mother and father of the child and the nurse were almost equally liable, and therefore he reserved his decision in order to see what action should be taken. The child h«d apparently been handed over to absolute strangers, without any inquiries being made as to their suitability.