CHILD PROSTITUTION IN WELLINGTON. THE CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT.

Evening Post, Volume LIV, Issue 55, 2 September 1897, Page 6

CHILD PROSTITUTION IN WELLINGTON. THE CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT.

The horrible cases of child prostitution that have of late come to light in this city are, as to some of them, now before the Courts, and the unpleasant task devolves upon us to decide how far • in the public interest it is our duty to give publicity to the evidence that may transpire. In ordinary cases of indecency it is the practice of respectably - condncted journals to place on record the barest possible statement of the facts, while suppressing evidence that would only satisfy a prurient curiosity while in no wise contributing to the public good. But the cases under notice seem to us to be of so extraordinary a character, so peculiarly disgraceful to the community, as to demand the immediate action of" some properlyconstituted authority to intervene, andmodify, if not put a stop to, a condition of things that if generally known would create a public outcry for their suppression. Now, there can be no reform that involves the liberty of the subject unless it be impelled by a determined expression of public opinion, and in this case that opinion can only be formed after a knowledge of the facts. With this object, then, we shall publish such of the evidence, without unnecessary detail, as is calculated to stir the community to a sense of its responsibilities for the existence of asocial horror that is a disgrace to the city. The first case of the series which appear in the calendar was called on in the Supreme; Court this morning. The accused, Charles Cripps and Minnie Brown, an adult couple, were charged with unlawful intercourse with two young girls— namely, Ida Emily Whittaker and Margaret Anne Noonan, or Wills, both aged 13, other counts being added for minor degrees of the same offence. The accused pleaded Not Guilty. The woman' Brown expressed a desire to be tried separately, but the Chief Justice saw no reason for granting the request. Mr. James Dunn was chosen foreman of the jury,j ury, and Dr. Findlay appeared in defence. Mr. Gully, Crown Prosecutor, in opening the case, said it was of something more than an unpleasant character. The main question the jury would have to consider was whether they could trust the evidence of the witnesses. The particular offence charged was said to have been committed on.tbe evening of the 24th May. It was alleged .that the accused Cripps met the two little girls in the street, and made an assignation with the girls, who, in consequence, went to the house where Cripps^ and Brown were living. While there they were sent out for liquor, and at least one of the girls became intoxicated. The offence was alleged to have been committed on one of the girls while she was in an intoxicated state. The charges, as far as Cripps was concerned, meant, first, that the complete offence/had been committed, or that it was attempted, or that in any event there was an indecent assault. The .woman was practically charged as an accomplice. Evidence having been called with reference to the house in North-street occupied by the accused, Elizabeth H. Whittaker, mother of one of the girls, deposed that her daughter was absent from home on the 24th May from about 8 o'clock in the morning. ■ That evening, however, witness saw her at the police station, and in consequence of what she learned from the police she examined the girl and found her clothing stained. The girl would be 14 next December. To Dr. Findlay — She received money from her daughter, probably 2s6d'a week, which she understood the girl received for selling watercress. She had been bringing home money for the last five or six months. Witness bad no idea she was getting money for immoral purposes. To the Judge— She had a large family, 11 in all, and some of the elder ones helped in supporting it, as her husband was not always in work. The girl was at school until she was over 13. She went to a sewing class, and used to say that she attended the Salvation Army meetings. ' His Honour— But isn't it scandalous tbat you should allow a girl to go roaming about the streets selling watercress? There are some poor people who we know can't do anything else, but that is not your case. There are cases of worse destitution. You have apparently a decent home and other children able to support you. It seems very disgraceful. I don't think I ought to pass it -by without taltipg some notice of it.

The witness replied that she did not knowthat the girl was getting money by the means suggested. His Honour pointed out that by allowing the girj to roam about in the company of another girl who was said not to be of reputable character she was certainly laying herself open to the imputation that she knowingly permitted her daughter to take money for the purposes suggested. "Of course," his Honour added, " the public are very much interested in this matter. Some people will say it is due to the condition of our schools, others that it is the fault of the police, and, no doubt, some will say that the Salvation Army is not doing very much good." What people must be surprised at, His Honour added, was this :— " Here was a girl kept at home, presumably a strong girl, who should go into service. She was brought up decently, and she couldjjo into service, but by keeping her at home and allowing her to go into the streets she undid all that had been done at school." Mr. Gully remarked thjit the girl was quite a small girl. His Honour said small girls rcould act as nurse-girls. Dr,. Teare, who examined the girls Whittaker and Wills, deposed that he found ample signs that they had been tampered with. In the case of the girl Whittaker the signs were consistent with illicit relations previous to the 24th May, but as regards the girl Noonan or "Wills, no act of the kind alleged had apparently ever been committed. Constable Kelly slated that when arrested the woman Brown wanted to know why another man named Percy Rundle had been also arrested, as he had " nothing to do with it." She added that they have been with men before. They are only little s, and I will tell the Magistrate so." On resuming after the luncheon adjournment, Ida Whittaker was called. She said she lived with her father and mother in Cambridge-road. On Sunday evening, 23rd May, she was with Madge Mills, and they met the accused Cripps, who asked them if they knew Minnie Brown. Madge replied " Yes." Then Cripps said if they came up there the next morning he would give them a pair of boots. He said his name was Watson, and he gave Madge a shilling, which they spent. Next morning witness called for Madge about 8 o'clock, and about 10 o'clock they left to go to Minnie Brown's house in North-street. It was the first time that she had met Minnie Brown. They met a girl named Nellie Evans coming out of the house. Cripps was not in, but he arrived shortly afterwards. On going inside Minnie Brown asked him if he was going to " shout." He replied " Yes," and sent witness out to get a shilling's worth of whisky and two bottles of lemonade. Madge Wills had some whisky and lemonade, but witness only took lemonade. Half an hour afterwards she was sent out for more whisky and lemonade. They were asked which was their favourite drink, and Madge said, " Port, wine and brandy," so Minnie Brown gave her 6d to get some, and they drank it. After this Madge went and got more whisky. By this time the drink had begun to take effect on Madge, who was falling about, and Minnie Brown told her she had better go and lie down. Minnie Brown helped Madge into the bedroom, and witness, who also felt a bit stupid, followed. Cripps presently came in and lay down with them, and took liberties with witness, but she did not see anything between him and Madge. Nellie Evans came into the room while they were there. On going back to the kitchen more drink was sent for, aad eventually they left the house. She had done this kind of thing before, but not with the same man. (Left sitting.)