PARENTS FOUND GUILTY

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25422, 19 February 1948, Page 8

PARENTS FOUND GUILTY

ENDANGERING LIVES OF CHILDREN

PRISONERS REMANDED FOR SENTENCE

(P.A.) WANGANUI, February 18. Guilty on three charges of failing to provide their children with the necessaries of life, thereby endangering their lives, was the verdict of the jury when the trial concluded in the Supreme Court, Wanganui, to-day, of Arthur Henry Major, aged 34, a mattress maker, of Springvale, and his wife, Clarice Marguerite Major, aged 24. The jury was absent for 48 mjnutes, and after its verdict had been made known, the two accused were remanded by the Chief Justice (Sir Humphrey O’Leary) for sentence on Monday. An application for bail was refused.

The trial began on Tuesday, when the case for the Crown was presented, and also occupied all day to-day, when both the accused gave evidence.

The three charges on which the accused were found guilty were separate counts relating to each child individually, the children being Ann Elizabeth Major, aged three. Joyce Nancy Major, aged two, and Lorraine Hettie Major, aged seven months, who died on November 28.

Both the accused said in evidence that they did not realise that the condition of their children was such that they should call for medical advice. The male accused, under cross-ex-amination by the Crown Prosecutor (Mr N. R. Bain), said he had a good garden which supplied the needs of his household. He admitted, however, that though the eldest child’s weight was no more than that of a baby, he did not notice any difference when he had occasion to pick her up. The male accused also said that their expenditure on groceries and bread was about £3 a week. The milkman delivered three pint bottles each day. and all their food coupons were used, except the tea coupons. There was little question that for some reason or other, the children were not getting sufficient food into their systems, said the Chief Justice, in his summing-up. It was true that there was a good deal of malnutrition even among children from excellent homes, because of the ignorance of parents or their inability to adjust their children to correct feeding. The evidence had shown that the home of the accused was well provided with food, and there was no evidence of stinting. “Perhaps the more important omission was that of medical care and attention,” the Chief Justice said to the jury. “You must decide whether there was an omission to provide these children with medical care and attention. Was that omission the act of reasonable. prudent, diligent parents? That is the standard on which these matters must be judged.” Such an omission need not be wilful or deliberate. It was an offence if the parents’ actions did not measure up to the standards already indicated. The final question for the jury to decide was whether the parents had given a reasonable, lawful excuse, said his Honour.