BABY-FARMING.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVI, Issue 7, 9 January 1904, Page 4

BABY-FARMING.

A NEW PLYMOUTH CASE. SOME ASTOI XPINO. IiF.VELATIOXS. WHOLESALE TRAFFIC IN INFANTS. A SALUTARY FINE. At the S.M. Court o,\ i-'riday monung, a casv ol rather serious pi\i 4 .'ortiotts occupit'd the morning gitUa'g. A ywwng woman named Emily Elizabeth Caady, nee Atkinson, alias McDonald, alias Hunter, was charged witdi a bi-cach oi the Infant Liie Protection Act. The case lor the prosecution stated that the New Plymouth police lvad traced ttvis chilli iroin New riymouth to To4iO, und lVom Toko to Tjie aecMMcd ha<J been i»aid .C2.) lor taking charge of the iniant, promising to cujvi for it arxl to fiunish fioni time to time a ivport as to its fct-alUi u'nd con.iition. Not lurrg altcrwards the accusiKl an-d her fpn.ily lert the town without leaving any clue to their destination, and within a few months of obtaining custody of the infant haKl disposed 01 u, ihus makisi'g a business tranBaciiciti of the aft air, with a handsome profit. Mr Wilson, of Messrs ltoy ai*d Wilson, conducted the -defence, and the accused pleaded "Not (iuil-ty." The first witness called was Mary Claffey, mother of the tvh 1 Ld, whose age s'Ae tts one year and ten mont'hs. rfhe stated that she had an in a paper to the effect that the advertiser wished to a child not less than ten months of ag-e, and s*ive replied to the notice. As a consequence accused auJ hv?r father called up at her henno to hjijuiie a-lxnit her child. The toy wab aslvoi) at the time. In ooovui-'Satian, accused stated that her rauue wus Mrs McDonald. to adopt the child for a conswleiation of mid this witness coiLsideicd satisfactory. On the Friday iollowing. uccusid came aga'.n, with Lor fatlter, to take away liie dwJd. Thoy said they li\\ J on a

farm on llw I-'rankley Ho ad. Witness, her mctluer and father, aird the de>e ( Adant a»d Mr Atkinson, hei latLer, wc**\j piesent when the agreement was wigned. Accused was jsigjoing her name a:i McDonald, when tier faUxT "jum[?ed at her," s-aying, "Your name is not McDonald ; sign here as E. Hkniter." Accused did so. Accxisud the*n took away the child, promising to report from time to time how he was. From that time tihey did not ste Mrs McDonald for months.

Here Sergeant Haddrell informed the Court tlnat accused haxl since married a Mr Candy, but in onder to facilitate examination he was using the name most familiar to tho present witness. In further exajnimatioti the witness stated that she hayi only received one letter from accused, in which she learned the boy was doing well. She replied, addressing her answer to "Mrs McDonald, Post Office, New Plymouth." S-lw had not had a line from accused since. The witness also -informed the Court that when the babv boy was banded over to McDonald, he was in perfect health, tout when he was recovered from the police it was seen that he had not been properly carod for, and he was considerably bi'uisid. A doctor, to Whom she took tlie boy, told Iter he fciad been neglected, and perhaps illtreated. Witness was subjected to a searching cross-examination by Mr WiJuon, and in answer to his questions «he stated she saw 11 >e ag»reement s-igmt'd and the money pai'd. She knew stfie was sending away her soul "for good." The Mrs Spemce, from whom the police recovered the chiJid in Wellington, was a sister of accused, but she appeared to feave treated the.child well. Mrs Spcmce told her that when she gm the baby from her mother at Toko it was in a shamefully lilthy and neglected condition, To the best of her knowledge Mrs Spefice had the boy for about three months. It was restored to witness by the police in December last. John ClafTey corroborated the evidence of the previous witness, his daughter, as to the agreement, and tihe banding Ofver of the child. He recounted the incident of accused's change of name when the agreement vraa signed. It made him think there was "something croaked," and bmtod as much. Accused thi-n very quickly "snapped up" the money, which was paid in notes. Mrs McDonald said die wawted the boy as coiiij/any for her little girl, agv'l five yeais. She told hiiu that sh\j had Maoris for neighbours on one side, and Germans on the otiicr ; and that she didn't want her daughter to mix with any of the children from these places. He had inquired all over the place for accused, and "had fou-nd that neither she nor her family had e\«er lived on the Frankley Itoud, as alleged. In answer to Mr Wilson witness said lie had kept the only copy made of the agreement. Mrs McDonald hod told him that it was (quite c-noftigh *to have an agreement drawn like this one, without going to a lawyer. She would rather do it quietly, and also said that by this means she could save £5. Sergeant Haiddrell adopted a new method of proving the domicile of ■accused whilst living in New I'lyymouth. He called John Cock, in the employ of Mr Clelamd, baker, wlw swore to having served accusud with bread daily from June 10 to Aug. 15 in Moleswoi th-strcet. The police then called James Spence, a tranJguand, of Wellington, who married a sister of accused He stated in evidence that he aii:l his wife had been living with the Atkinsons at Toko, he working on the farm. Tliey saw the child tbere, nnd took a fancy to it. Thev il "* beir ® in «rf rnih i lllT " M ' ,l ' s "'other, and with' her thej made arrangements <or its adoption at the er.d of November, nlvn leaving Toko for \VelJSf™ 1 ; lhc J-ounßster was dirtv, ami not properly cared for, infested with vermin. He was ,'ot paid to_take the child, whom lie gave t P f r , Ctaffes ' in n «*'">U'r. Prior to that he had thought it legal] v adoptod by Mrs Atkinson. He loft Joko because Atkmson alleged he was making mischief aibout his da«glhter. It was not because Mrs McDonald was to be marri«l to Air Candy, and wanted to be rid of the 'bqy, that he took it awav Sergeant Haddrell gavV evidence tftat accused hold not been licensed under the Act in New Plymouth. lie jmew the defendant, who was before the Court in October last. She then stated that she had had dealings of ' chrtd W ' th "' gar ' l to ttnl - v <»'<-■ To Mr Wilson : Tl* proceedings in October were to establish th- i trty of a child left by accused with some people in Lepperton. This closed the case for the police "r Wilacm opened the defrm-e /wiotrog out that they admitted a technical breach of the Act bin •" averred that it had been committed to ignorance of the requirements of the law. He had pleaded "Not <mi|. ty in order to bring out the facts • • rt the case, and was glad that he faad done so. He called Blizajbeth Emily Caiijdy, nee \tkin- ■». abas alias Hunte M» defe,Kiant. She gave her account ° f . the "lanner of taking the eliiM whach tore out tlx> statement of ® ' tbftt the witness Claffey

declined to have this matter "put tliroMg-li" l).v a lawyer, as tlwy want-(,-u il kept quiet. Accused eNplaiii,,l w j,.v she ha.l Kivc Rmiu-r. In uainsai-l ions like I** the inotlieis oi clnklicii uun..u tore geneitillv a source oi U™'''*" h. V knew where their infants *iie. ordvr t" tl>™w the mothei oil tm. scent Siiv iulimtU»:l that tit 1 SEol obtaining the child shej-as living with her imrcnts in »» lS woi Ui-Htrcct, their s( ' l l lL ' ltH '" „ unfautJ in searching the title M property which they wished to pmctase <m the Frui.kley Roud. I'lmi■hi« the title unsatisfactory, lh<-> Iwil i«»t gcuc on with the atxl t-a-J taken up property at . ■ oko. When ste got '»«'"« f |' om , ~H* place, her mother took a fancj to the liov, and she hmwlttl htm, ami tix- j:25, to her iimnoduitely. »>ks did not know th-at in taking money for tl'A.* custody of the child she was lommittmi; a broach of the Act. Sergvan-t Iladdretl rose t.o me crotoexmtnination oi the accused with an expression that showed he was m Tjosseswiwn of some facts that would not prove too palatable to the ilehiir.Uuvt in tilie liox. The answers elicited by las examination vere brivflv that the accused had been paid "before for taking charge of a child. For the Smith child she had nwivod £lO, which she handed to her mother. She had another child named Ilrosnahian, for whom she got another £lO, and that also was handed to her mother. Sergeant H-ad'drell : You seem to h'a-ve a likiwg for children. Deieiadant : Yes. Sergeant Haddrell : In fact, you take all you can come across, provided you are well paid putting" them away, and no questions are asked ? H-eiendant : No. I only take those 1 can manage to look after. Sergeant Haddrell : Do yon call this looking after them, dropping them all over the country ? No answer. Sergeant Haddrell : These are your nrairiage lines. Vou w ay here you were a spinster at the time of your recent marriage. How do you irconcile this statement with your previously sworn dochiration in this Court that you were a widow ; that your huyband had died in Palmerston North, and thai you had two or three children. Witness' answer was that she had taken the name of a man with whom s-he had previously been keeping compiainy.

Mr Wilson objected to the trend of the cross-exainiimticn. It would serve no good purpose. The Sergeant tho witness had been put forward he was entitled to cross-examine her. Mr Wilson admitted he coukl not prevent the questions being put. Acting on the suggestion, Serguant Haddrell -desisted. Ili?: next questions were, Kow many children have von thus obtained uaid been paid for ? Did you get any money with the ciiikl Brown ? iiefiaidant : Yes, I got £lO with it. Sci'gount IPaiddreU : And about the child Smith ? Defendant : That's the same. Sergeant H'addivll : You know wry well, as Jdo mysoli', that they're not the same. IV.'fci.vdkmt : Well, I got the sum of £lO for each of them. My mother got the money. Haddrell : Yon swore before that you had never been paid for the Brown child. Defendant : No, 1 didn't.

Seiigeant Haddrell : How much did you wit'h the child Brc'*na,han. IVfendant : £2O.

Seigacnt Haddrell : You came into Colli t and swore you luiil never had

siuiiliT with chilftivii, and then we iind out ihecsb things. Do you expect the Court to Relieve a word you say ?

The Bench asked defendant as to the w'hereaijou:ts of the children alleged to have been McDonald's ?

Defendant said there was only one, and this she had with her now. Mr Wilson asked the Bench to take into consideration tho facts that the accused at the time of the alleged offence had hee«i under the influence of her mother, who hud received all tliepecuniary benefit : and also that she had since married and been removed i J jin all her relations. The Magistrate said that the evidence disclosed baliy-farming on a considerable scale. Tl.'is young woman appeared to haw received £65 for four children, throe of whom sine had disposed of in various ways, ar.d the remaining one was still rn hei) Ho wus 7iot going to lay any stress on the alleged ilPticatiiient of the child, as ho did. not think this had beera suflieientlv proved. Bijo V.iat the <(_'l'cndant was prejiared to take money from all and sundry with the object of disposing of children was <[uite clear, 'llii-.i was the very evil thwt the Act was filmed to prevent. Counsel for the defence had culk-d it a technical breach, but he couid hardly believe the defendant's assertions of ignorance of the l»aw., She 'had told un-

truths in Court beiore, and now here was another similar offence. Far id'om being a technical offence, it was, in his opinion, as baid as it could be. Defendant would be lined the full penalty allowed, £.'2n, ajrd costs. He would refrain from sending her to gaol, swing that she had married since committing the offence. Mr Wilson askod that time be given in which to pay the- line. The Magistrate said he would allow a month. Mr Wilson pointed to the fact that the husband was receiving only £2 a week. On a remark being made that defendant might get back some of the money pawl to her mother, Mr Wilson said " lUat's gone long ago." Witnesses' and Court ex]H?nses amounted to £4 12s -Id, and Court fees to seventeen shillings.