ALLEGED NEGLECT

Evening Post, Volume XCVII, Issue 26, 30 January 1919, Page 10

ALLEGED NEGLECT

CHARGE AGAINST FOSTERPARENTS DISMISSED

CHILD TO GO TO A HOME

The hearing of the charges of neglecting a foster-child so as, to cause him unnecessary suffering, and thereby injuring his health, against Robert Henry Nelson Stewart and Maud Evangeline Stewart, of, Epuni-street, was continued by Mr. F.. V. Frazer, S.M., yesterday afternoon.

The male defendant stated that the child was adopted in 1914 as company for Mrs. Stewart, who had lost her own child. It was very weak and puny, and had remained so right up to the time that the police had taken the matter up. He had been many times prescribed for by medical men, and had been weighed on many occasions. At first the child had slept in a dress basket, but in 1915 a cot was purchased for him, and he was then shifted from witness's room to a back room. Sufficient bedding was provided— a kapoc mattress, a piece of protective American cloth, and ample covering. In order to prevent the mattress from becoming soiled a piece of sacking was placed upon it. Witness saw no reason why sacking should not be so used, but after he had been told by a health inspector to remove it, he substituted a piece. of water-proof sheeting. Both children were treated in the same manner. The whole family contracted influenza, and witness applied at Mr. Fraser's committee room for assistance. Two emergency helpers came to .the house, knocked loudly on fine door, and walked in. He was annoyed at the manner in which they-entered, and said, "I think you have rather va damned cheek." Miss Hulbert, one of the workers, considered that the child should be taken away in order that it might be given better treatment; but Mrs. Barrett, who called subsequently, was of the opinion that the child was properly cared for. After Dr. Clay had called, witness decided to take the child to Dr. Elliott. It was taken just as it was, but its hands and face were washed. To Inspector Marsack : A premium of £20 was received when the child was adopted. You say that the child was weak and puny from the first. Now, when you adopted a child to keep your wife company,, why did you not select a healthy child?— When we got the child from the Salvation Army Home the matron said that the child would fill out. How do you account for the statements that one child was clean and the other dirty ?—They were both washed at the same time. The boy might have been dirty, but he was not "horribly dirty." Witness admitted that the Health Inspector had remarked on the dirty state of the house on his first visit, but he had later observed that it was cleaner. When the inspector first called Mrs. Stewart had been in bed for a week. The female accused corroborated her husband's statements. The child was washed twice or three times a day, and was bathed twice a week, as often as the other child. "Why were you annoyed at. the visits of the emergency helpers?" asked Mr. Frazer.—Because we had had trouble before with the Society for the Protection of Women and Children. They walked into the house and insisted on seeing everything. ' I considered that they should have had a warrant. Laura Rowe, wife of a witness previously called, said that while she had lived next door to the Stewarts the child had been properly cared for. She had once looked after the ' child while Mrs.. Stewart was away on holiday and found that it had continual bowel trouble. "Do you remember saying to Sergeant M'Lean: 'We and the Stewarts belong to the Orange Lodge and wo cannot very well go against them?'" asked the Inspector.—"l cannot remember having said that," witness replied. To Mr. Frazer: The child was certainly a "little dirty." Thomas Edward Taylor, watersider, said that while he had resided with the Stewarts the child had been well cared for. "They continually ran about with a thermometer testing milk, and they constantly looked up prescription books." Emanuel Clarksori also gave evidence on similar lines. Helen Holmes, matron of the Receiving Home, gave evidence as to how the child had improved while it was at the home, and stated that it was suffering from no disease. In summing up the evidence the Magistrate remarked that it was very voluminous and very contradictory. Apparently the child had been neglected at times, and complaints had come to the notice of the Society for the Protection of Women and Children, but at other times it had been well looked after. He was satisfied that the child had been neglected, partly from direct evidence, and partly from the fact tjjat it had gained seven pounds during its short stay at the Receiving Home. He would nob say that the child was always neglected, or that the neglect was wilful or deliberate, but he was inclined to think that the neglect was largely due to Mrs. Stewart's illness, and although there had been neglect he could not enter a conviction on the charge. The information would be dismissed. The child should not go back to-its old sur- ! roundings, and he was prepared to j commit it to a home under the Industrial Schools' Act, but settlement of this question was held over.