"GLARING CRUELTY"

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 12, 15 January 1915, Page 8

"GLARING CRUELTY"

, . — «. . LITTLE CHILD .ILLTREATED GUABDIAN FINED £10. A case of cruelty to a child was heard 'in the Magistrate's Court to-day before Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M. The defendant was a married woman named Millicent Helena Thomson, who resides with her husband at Seatoun. She has had no children of her own, and in May last (according to the story told by Inspector Hendrey) she answered an. advertisement which enquired for a kindly person to adopt a child nine years of age who was then in a local receiving home. A little later she took the child with the intention of adopting it. Some papers were drawn up, but the negotiations were never completed. However, the little boy remained with the Thomsons. For the first two months the boy (Robert Hepburn) was well treated, but ever since then he had been treated like a slave and forced to do work which was heavy even for an adult. On one occasion he had to wheel a load of bricks in a heavy barrow, and then he had to knock the old mortar off the bricks. "It is a pathetic story," continued the Inspector. "The little boy has had no time to play — no^ time in which to mix up with other children. He had to walk a mile and a-half to school, and was not even allowed to take his lunch. This meant that he had to run all the way home at mid-day just to do some household duties. Consequently he did not have time in which to eat anything. Is it any wonder that he ever stole food?" Inspector Hendrey then proceeded to relate the punishment which led to the case reaching the hands of the police. The lad had stolen a knife and given it to a boy friend. Boy-like he was afraid to tell the truth straight out, so he was taken and beaten severely. A little later the same day some further enquiries were made as to the whereabouts of the knife, and the boy was again ''beaten, stripped almost naked, tied by a piece of rope to a tap in some part of the house, and thriished with a strap. That day he went without his^ breakfast and his dinner. But the incident was not forgotten by Mr?. I Thomson. Two days after she was still unsatisfied at the non-recovery of the knife, and. again flogged the boy until he was so sore that he couid nob wear a shirt. He was made to sleep for two ,nights on a bare canvas placed on the floor. Finally, he ran away, and_ needless to say, has not been returned since. The Society for the Protection of Women and Children took the matter in hand, and the boy was taken to the inspector's office, where he *was examined. "His little body was simply covered with bruises," stated that officer, "and his condition necessitated treatment at the hands of Dr. Stout. The doctor certifies that the injuries were the result of excessive cruelty, and that the child is very, under nourished. I took the liberty of bringing the child to your W6rship, and you will understand that none of my statements are exaggerated." Mr. B. B. Williams appeared for defendant, and entered a plea of guilty. However, there were many extenuating circumstances which it was desirable that the Court should hear. He therefore called Dr. Platts-Mills, who stated that she had attended Mrs. Thomson continuously. She was suffering from severe heart trouble, and had suffered several nervous prostrations. Twice she had been on the point of death. She was fifty- two years of age, and during sudden outbursts of temper could not be held responsible for her actions. She was abnormal, but not a lunatic, although she sometimes verged on lunacy when in a temper. To Inspector Hendrey : She was not a fit and proper person to have charge of a child, and should never have been given this boy. She was ignorant of the ways of children. William Henry Green stated that while in good health Mrs. Thomson was a kind-hearted woman. Mr: Williams submitted that it was a case where leniency could well be shown under the circumstances, especially in view of the fact that his client was at times irresponsible. As to what penalty should be imposed, the defendant was in poor circumstances, and any fine would fall on her husband. Again, a woman like that could hardly be committed to a prison. Inspector Hendrey stated that when defendant was shown the nature of the injuries inflicted she nearly fainted. The husband was a man he respected, and he had done all he could for the boy. Apparently, however, he had not asserted his authority in anything like the way he should have done. "This is certainly a glaring case of gross cruelty," said his Worship, " and defendant is liable to a penalty of £50, or three months in gaol. However, I don't propose to make the fine as heavy as that. I will be very lenient, and make it £10, in default, two months in gaol." Defendant was also ordered to pay £3 5s expenses, and was given fourteen days in which to find the money.