ALLEGED MANSLAUGHTER.

Otago Witness, Issue 2895, 8 September 1909, Page 29

ALLEGED MANSLAUGHTER.

CHAiMJE DISMISSED* AUCKLAND,- September 6. Judgment wa£ given by Mr Kettle,, S.M., this afternoon in. the case against two young married people named Robert* John Neil and Olive Jesephkb© Neil, who were charged with the manslaughter of their infant child. Has Worship said he had 1 carefully comsidiered the evidence, which, in his ■ opinion, was not sufficient to justify him j in sending the case to the Supreme CoiirtJ The evidence showed that right up to tho time when the child was taken suddenly, ill, just before ite death, there was nothing to arou&e the suspicious of the mother that the child's life was in jeopardy. The case was one which hv«^ duoed 'him to make some remarks, which' he hoped would be of some benefit to * young mothers. The case showed the great benefit which the community would! derive from the establishment of the in-* stitutkm which had been, formed in iNe"nt ■ Zealand by Lady Plunket lor the- train*- ■ ing of- nurses for giving advice to young . mothers 'not too «well • supplied 'with the goods of this world vas .to Bow to .bring up their children. The institution 'should * be supported, not only by the mothers and fathers', but It was of such import--since that.- it should be supported by -the . State itself. (From Ottb Own Osbespokdent.) AUCKLAND, September 6. In the course of his remarks Mr Kettlesaid that if the nation were to continue', it was absolutely necessary that the death rate of infants should -be lowered. He went on to quote from the report of D_ Purdy, showing that a very large percentage of infantile mortality 'was dv» j to preventable .diseases. It was* apparent 1 in the present case that the mother had had very little knowledge. He did nob blame, but pitied, her because- she had been abominably treated.. The .coroner's duty was to furnish the' verdict apd the depositions to the Attorney-general, so that the latter could decide whether a. prosecution should follow. The coroner did not issue a warrant authorising the police constable in charge of the case to take the people into custody. The constable, without any authority at all from the coroner or his superior officer, toot those two young people in charge, and took them to the lockup. The conI stable's explanation was that that had 1 been the custom in other cases of a similar i nature: In the opinion of the court it ' was a wrong one, and the constable had no right to so arrest thetn. His duty was to ask the- coroner if he would issue a warrant. His Worahu) believed that the 1 constable had acted in all honesty, but he had made a mistake.