CANON IN COURT.

(ALLEGED CRUELTY TO A GIRL

WIFE SENT FOR TRIAL

Late London files state that ■astounding charges of cruelty to a 10-year-old girl were preferred at Barmouth Police Court against Canon Joseph Malet Lambert, M.A., L£-£;> of Newland Vicarage, Hull, and his ,wife. The Rev. J.'.-M. Lambert is Veil-known in Yorkshire. ' " The charges were brought by the N.S.P.C.C., through Inspector John Hoberts, who was represented by counsel, Mr Clarke- Hall. The child alleged to have suffered from, cruelty at,their lands is named Mary Elizabeth Inman, "whose status in the house, said counsel, "is not dearly denned ■except that she has lived with the lamberts at Hull and at Hafodbryn, -their Barmouth house, for the sumaner." -, , . •£ i Tlie canon and his wife were defended by Mr Ellis Jones Griffiths, M.P., and in reply to the charge expressed a desire to be dealt with beiore a jury, and not summarily by /the magistrates. . ■■''•',- . Outlining the evidence for the prosecution, Mr Clarke Hall said that Whatever the little girl's position in -the canon's house might turnout te Tie, he proposed to prove that she had suffered severely trom cruelty and neglect. Her only breakfast seemed to have been scrapings from other plates, served in an enamel tin, and a concoction from the remaining tealeaves for drink. . For dinner she had scraps from the previous day's dinner, some of which were given to the dog. Several times she had to pick maggots put or the tin. The child ate her meals alone on rthe hall window-sill. Subsequently the nurse, finding the <child positively • ill and apparently dying, spoke to Dr. Dmglo, the family doctor,' who was shocked at the girl's -'condition. A search warrant was obtained and the child was removed to -the workhouse. She then weighed 481b, as against the normal weight oi Mr Clarke Hall added that Mrs [Lambert had exclaimed to the nurse, ■"I hate the child. "What I give her Us good enough for her." After the indication of the serious mature of the charges, the prosecution icalled Dr. D,inglo, of Barmouth, as the first witness. The doctor said that he [happened to be in the canon s house tto attend the son. Miss Jukes a itrained nurse, entroated him (the Jdoctor) to come and see "Mary lniman." _ .... , „ He had never seen the child before, nor heard of her, but the nurse led lurn. to a room where she was lying, ffhe little girl was in bed, in a most disreputable nightdress, of an ingrained color. He examined her, and found that she was extremely ill and Tery much emaciated. .' She had a frightened expression. Her skin was dry and harsh, resembling parchment, the pulse was ex.tremely feeblo, and she had an irritable cough. There was nothing organically wrong w'th her, yet from Iher appearance he felt fearful of her life. He told Mrs Lambert he thought, it ja scandalous state of affairs, and in the event of the child's death, which The thought possible, he should refuse a certificate and order an inquest. Whilst he stood expostulating with M.T3 Lambert in the hall, the cook -came up from the kitchen, and, apparently overhearing the subject of conversation, exclaimed, "Perhaps you would like to see some of Mary's food, -doctor."

"I would," he answered. Then the •cook showed him a plate of toast prinds, and*a tin containing .something abhat looked to him like dripping fat. ; This concluded the doctors evi<denoe 2 and the cook alluded to (she [had since left), Mrs Ellen Gilmartin, fwas called to continue the tale. She said that Mary got only the remnants ■of food, and sometimes would shalre the dog'.s food. ' The child did the ihousework( cleaned the silver,, and. did' Iher own isewing and mending. She slept on a mattress in the attic, where the two other servants were. Mrs iambert told 'her, that if. Mary did Snot do her work she was to give her ia, good whipping,; Mrs Lambert said, ■''The other cook -used to; -she haid .good strong hands." '•-.''. . The trained nurse, whose protest led to the prosecution*, next entered the •Ibox. She was Miss Elizabeth. Hannah ■Jukes,: of the Midland Institute, Birmingham. ' She said that the food given to Mary Inman was unfit for 'Consumption. • > ' -:."v In. reply to a remonstrance, Mrs Lambert said: "I hate the child; any food is good enough for her." Next came the little alleged victim herself, Mary Elizabeth. Inman, who ■looked very frail and ill. She said that she had been living with Canon and Mrs Lambert at Hull ever since .she could remember.. During the daytime she did the sweeping, put things away, and tidied up. She had no lessons at Barmouth, Imt bad had some at Hull, but not :alwa'ys, because she had to work. If she did not- work properly she was whipped and shut up in a room. Mrs Lambert beat her with a stick and a poker, as well as with her ihand.

Maggots were in her dinner once or i;wice when Mr Arthur, the Canon's son, was ill. She was confined in -the abasement room whilst Dr.. Dingle was in the house, so he did not come across lier.

Mrs Lambert, in her defence, stated that Mary Inman was the daughter of :a~charwoman, and was.left with her little over six years ago rather than •she should be ( sent to a workhouse. She was adopted in order t>o be trained as a domestic servant.

Canon Lambert said Mary Inman ■|was often taken for walks and to picoiios, and was given abundant food. At the conclusion of the evidence "the magistrates committed Mrs Lambert for trial.