Another Case of Cruelty.

Te Aroha News, Volume IV, Issue 162, 24 July 1886, Page 9

Another Case of Cruelty.

Samuel Ley, 36, labourer, and Mary Ann Ley, 40 his wife, were lately indicted for neglecting to find food and raiment for their children, Frederick Ley, aged 5, and Mary Elizabeth Loy, aged 7, at Ashwater, on the 19 April and "divers other days." The female prisoner is the male prisoner's secoond wife, his first wife having died two years ago. By the first wife he had five children, of whom three, who had been living with their aunt at Barnstaple after their mother's death, came back to live with him and the female prisoner soon after their marriage last October, when they took possession of a cottage at Buckhorn, in the parish of Ashwater, The allegation on the part of the prosecution was that the prisoners were guilty of cruel ill-treat-men towards the two younge? children by neglecting to provide them with proper and sufficient food, by which their lives were placed in the greatest possible danger. They were frequently fouud, in the absence of the 1 prisoners from home, crying for food, and but for the kindness of the neighbours they would probably have been starved to death.

Evidence for the prosecution was given by Mr John Braund, yoeman and guardian ot the parish. He said when he saw the child Frederick's arm in the middle of April it was nothing but skin and bone, and a living skeleton. The child said he was very hungry. He saw an older brother, named Alfred, who had two black eyes and a large bruise on the forehead.— Elizabeth Spry, Jane Harris, Mary Susan Lasbbroqk, and Selina Ann Jeffrey, neighbours of the prisoners, stated generally that they had supplied the children with food, which they ate ravenously, after crying for it. They also deposed to instances of cruel treatment.—Clara Ley, aged 9, and Alfred Ley, the male prisoner's children, were also called, and spoke to acts of unkindness and cruelty on part of both prisoners towards them. The girl said her father kicked her little brother Freddy, aged five, with his " best boots" one Sunday night. He also kicked her on one'occasion, because she ate a little bit of meat which he had left from his dinner. It appeared that the two children had been in the workhouse a month, and their present appearance was so improved that the judge said it did the officials credit.

Dr. Symonds, surgeon, practising in the Holsworthy district, stated that he examined the two children on the day in question. The girl Polly was in a wretched and emaciated condition, very filthy, covered with vermin, and shewed all the symptoms of want of nourishment. The skin was loose, and the child weighed 351bs. with all her clothes on. A properly.-nou* ished child or her age should have weighed lOlbs. more. After three weeks' resiience in the Workhouse she gained 71b in weight. Her clothes were very dirty, and not what he should consider sufficient, but the children were as much clothed as children of that class frequently were. There was no disease about the child, and nothing to account for its emaciated condition, ;except want of proper food. Her health had suffered seriously in consequence. In examining the little boy Freddy, he found •him in a worse condition, and so emaciated that he seemed scarcely able to walk. He Was very dirty, and there was vermin in his hair and on his body. His emaciation was so extreme that, unless steps had been taken, the child's life would have been in imminent danger. He weighed 26 lbs., whereas a child of five in fair health should have weighed, over 32 lbs. There were bruises on the face of the girl and on the legs of the boy. ;• Mary Ann Mills, nurse at the Workhouse, also spoke of the filthy and weak condition the children were in when they were placed under her care. The boy said his father caused the bruises upon his body, and the girl said her step-mother inflicted the bruises upon her.

His Lordship^, in summing up, pointed out that the case was not merely one of starvation, but of gross neglect, as shewn by the disgustingly filthy condition in which the children were found. The question for the jury was whether there had been substantial arid continued negligence, and if serious injury to health had been caused in consequence.^ If so, they were guilty of the offence with which they were charged. The prisoners were found guilty. His Lordship expressed concurrence in the verdict, remarking that the case, which was a very serious one, -was thoroughly proved. A little more neglect, and one of the children "would have died, and the prisoners would then have more probably been ; put on ''their trial for a much more serious pffence. ;It" was; the good fortune of,, the prisonera'that their career of "..prime .had; been stopped^ i Ibvwas n0 credit' to theia ■ that .the [-lives of, children had beent prolonged,: (-for [if }.bfte had not" iriterfered; ; one;oi them might have; died; ? He .could n^ duct' of 'th'e'neigtiboujfSf and also of all;cpn^ cerne^ifoj^their hum^ an|^^credi^ w^^e official's of; t%ms&!f<^esrc;th>^ ■cb^d^a^lfwat?^^ .treafcmen^

ofittie neighbours, that the prisoners ,wem noton their \trial for wilful murder. H^ looked upon the case as an exceedingly bad one, and must 5 deal with it accordingly He should, therefore, inflict upon the %r£ soners the utmost punishment the law atlowed, and- that was that they should eack be imprisoned for two years.