ALLEGE & NEGLECT OF A CHILD.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11748, 24 November 1903, Page 4

ALLEGE & NEGLECT OF A CHILD.

THE BROOKS CASE. j Albert Brooks and his wife, Agnes Emily I Brooks, appeared on indictment at th© Supreme Court yesterday, charged with having, on August 17th, at New Brighton, having the custody of Ronald Brooks, a child of the age of years, wilfully neglected such child, in a manner likely to cause it unnecessary suffering. The accused, who Dm* defended by Mr Donnelly, pleaded "Not guilty" to the indictment. ' *7 • - Mary McPliee, nurse, residing at New Brighton, gave evidenoe that on August lfth Mrs Brooks had seen her about taking charge of a child, and hod stated in course of conversation that the child,w«ta unwell, and if it died a. doctor's certiflcate could be obtained. She had obtained the child from Mra Brooks the next morning. There was a scab on the child'- nose, and some marks on its head, but Mrs Brooks had e_plained that these had been caueed by fafi-. Mrs Brooks had instructed her not to give the child any milk, but she did not say anything aa to tho lower parte of the. child's body being sore. On taking tho child home, witne** stripped him, and found him raw from the hips to the heels, the left leg being worse than the right one. The child's body;&raH also swollen in different parts. Sue attended to the child, and put it to bed, but it was breath-, ing so heavily through the night that -he waa afraid it would die. The next morning she sent for Mrs Brooks, who stated that the child suffered from fits. Dr. Byrnes examined the child on August 18th. In consequence of careiful treatmeat, the child had recovered by September lst, and had since remained healthy and free from sores. She had had no ' trouble in keeping the child clean and well. When she first got'the child, she found that he was addicted to dirty'habits, but after three week-" training he bad got over his troubles, and was an ordinary child. __ Mr Donnelly: She had not told Mrs Brooks that she had had a large experience of children suffering from tits. Mfcrtha J. L-mont stated that she had lived next door to the house occupied by the two accused, and frequently. saw the child. At timea s it waa left in the garden In the hot sun without a hat, and was also boxed up in a corner of the yard, and appeared to. be generally neglected, j When she saw the child-at Mrs McPhee's, it was too weak to- hold up its head, and was » mas* of sores from its hips downwards.

Ellen Mary Berry stated that the child Ronald slept by itself near the kitchen, on a canr-a -tKetehtr covered with, newspapers, with old clothe, as coverings. Them wet* no pillows on the bad. To Mr Donnelly: Mr Brooks was always kind to the hoy. Ceo-i- -X. Mu-grove, local vuritor at New Brighton for the Industrial School authorities, also gave similar evidence conoeming th* child's condition. The depositions of A. W. McKinney, taken in -U" lower Court, were read, M the witness wan too ill to attend.

Dr. Syrtka -t_t«_ that he saw the child at.Mw McPhee's house on August 18th. He examined tlie boy, and found cuts on its head,.* sear on the nose, a bruise .en the forehead, nnd an abrasion an tha hand. The buttocks and tits calve* of the legs ware suffering from acjto ee_em_, the ot_*r parts al«_«lqp Mag iflaotad to a Imb •*•

tent. The abdomen was hard and swollen, and the child was suffering from other internal disorders. The hands and feet were very cold and swollen, indicating weak circulation. The child _-» presented several signs of constitutional disease. He attributed the acute ecxema partly to the fact that the child's clothing was not changed often enough. In his opinion tbe child had been neglected. .To Mr Donnelly: Eczema was common enough among children during cold weather. The cut on the head was consistent with a fall. ■ '

Mrs E. W. Cutmington and Constable Rowe, of New Brighton, gave evidence as to the child's condition at the time It was token by Mrs McPhee, and the circumstances under which it lived at the Brooks' house. For the defence, Helen Mcßride, Inspectress under the Infant Life Protection Act, gave evidence that Mrs,Brookshouse was registered under the Act. She liad visited the house five or six times during the last twelve months. The «_ild appeared to he? to be always well fed, and fairly well clothed. During her visit* to Mrs Brooks's house she had never seen anything to complain of concerning the child.

Dr. Orchard stated that he saw the child on August 19th at Mrs McPhee's house. Its legs were small, the size of the body, and there were definite marks of an inherited disease. A lack of intellectual development had prevented the child from having good habits, so that it required constant attention, particularly in winter.

To Mr Stringer: Even under proper conditions it was quite probable that a child, 10 constituted as the Brooks child was, would get into a condition similar to what the child waa in when taken hy Mrs McPhee. ■ / .-

Rosa -finnio Husband, of New Brighton, stated that die had visited at Mrs Brooks's house for several yee_», and the child appeared to heir to have been always treated very kindly. , Charles Henry Evans, Margaret Evans, Jane 'Mary Wheeler, Elizabeth Margaret Dunkley, .Alary Ann Goston, also gave evidence.

Mrs Brooks, one of the accused, stated that the boy Ronald had heen with her three years Inst May. Twenty .pounds had been paid to her when she took the child, but the boy had not been legally 4dopted. Eruptions, similar to the one complained of, had appeared on the child regularly* before, and fshe had always treated him. 4 The , child always had a piece of white counterpane folded beneath him, sod sheets and blankets above. On Saturday, August 15th, the child became unwell, and Dr. Greenwood was sent for, and arrived tba next day. The local chemist also saw the child. Dr. Greeni wood advised that the child should be P nt into a parsing home. .The child had not been compulsoriiy boxed in in a comer of the yard, nor was he allowed to go for hours without a hat in the hot sun. At the time Mrs Berry spoke of,' the child's bed was covered with sheet* and a coun-

terpane. To Mr Stringer: The child had developed the rash about' a week before it was sent to Mrs McPhee's. She hod told Mrs MePhee about the condition of the child's body prior to handing him over. The child had been sleeping upstairs for abont a month before being taken away. Alfred Brooks, the other ac-used, lathe course of his evidence, stated that the child had been treated as well as his own chU>

' This concluded the evidence for the d«fence. ' Mr Donnelly addressed the jury, and at six o'clock the Court adjourned tilt halfpast seven. On tha Court resuming at half-past seven, his Honour -urnmed up, and the jury retired at five minutes pas* eight. Ten minutes later tbe jury returned, and the foreman stated that a verdict of "Not Guilty " had been agreed to.