SERIOUS CHARGE

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 49, 26 August 1921, Page 8

SERIOUS CHARGE

ALLEGED ILL-TREATMENT OF A CHILD

PARENT BEFORE THE COURT.

"It is little short of inhuman to strip a child of seven years of age &nd beat it so as to break the skin, and the marks to be visible eight or nine days afterwards," stated Inspector M'llveney at the Magistrate's Court to-day -when placing before the Magistrate (Mr. F. ,K. (Hunt, S.M.) the police version of a case an which Mrs. Burdett Hill Beckett was charged with ill-treating a child, and also with assault. Mr. 0. C. Mazengarb appeared on behalf of the defendant.

In outlining 'the case, Inspector M'llveney stated that the child was «i little over seven years of age, and had been compelled to rise from her bed in the morning at 6 o'clock, clean -up the ■dining-room, cook the breakfast, make tho porridge, fry the sausages, and take the cooked breakfast to her mother in ibad. . Then the child would have to do miore cleaning up before going to school, a kindergarten in Tinakori-road. The ■parent had been paying Is per week for the child's care and tuition at the school, but latterly the payments had ceased. Unlike other children attending tJte kindergarten, the child was not provided ■with any lunch, and in consequence had to take lunch from other children. When Mrs. Hill Beckett was told of this, she ..explained that the child was suffering from v.'orms, and had therefore not been given food. The teacher took exception ■to the child being without food, and thought that she would.be much better away, rather than have her interfering with the other children's food. Mrs. Hill Beckett had slated that the child had been given money. ' On the following morning after this interview the, child had arrived at school, and the teacher was astonished to find that she was sufI fering from bruises on forehead, a,rms, and legs, clearly indicating that she had been severely thrashed. The matter waa .reported to the police, and the child was examined by Dr. Henry. The latter would say that the child had received a. very severe beating, and had suffered. The child would tell the Court that she •had been stripped and 'beaten with a, •stick. Mrs. Hill Beckett, when seen 'at the Police Station, had admitted beating the child, because of what the child had done. PROTECTION OF INFANTS. The Inspector further stated, I that while the Act provided that a parent had the right to administer reasonable punishment, he contended that in this case the punishment had not been reasonable. It was not "moderate chastisement," and it was* not fair to the child, who had been given an immoderate dose of food and an overdose of punishment. "I stand for the protection of infants, who are unable to protect themselves," he remarked, in asking the Court to make an order that the child be taken from the custody of Mrs. Hill Beckett. The Defendant (concerned): "No." Inspector M'llveney intimated that if this were done the child could be committed to an industrial school, where there would be no difficulty in keeping her under proper observation and treatment. . , ■ The' child, Dolly Hill Beckett, gave evidence confirming the inspector's statement. ' In answer to Mr. Mazengarb, the child said that she had previously lived at Petone with a lady who was not kind to her. She, had gone to the pictures lots of times with her present mother; her mother used to sit up late sewing for witness, and also heard her lessons. She remembered that 1 Ker mother had put an advertisement in .the newspaper for a music teacher for her. 'Witness used to get beatings on the hand for riot doing what she was told, and her mother had spoken to her about telling stories. ' When questioned regarding the payment of school fees, etc., witness stated that on one occasion she had -taken money from the sideboard, and with this she had bought fruit and lollies. Her mother had whipped her twice on the back, but not since. Witness used to go home from school ■ for lunch, and; this was always made ready by her mother.

The Magistrate: "Do you want to go back to your mummy?"—" No." Dr. Henry gave ftvidence to the effect that he hail examined the child on the 19th August, and found the child's arms and legs to be covered witti bruises, while there was also a large bruise on the left side of the forehead. The superficial layer of skin was scratched. It did not appear that the child had suffered any permanent injury, and she did not appear to be frightened or scared. The Ixack of the left hand yvat bruised and swollen. He was of opinion that the injuries were .caused by blows from a stick or rod, except that on the forehead which was done by some flat instrument. . •

In ! answer to Mr. Mazengasb, the witness said .that he had examined the child, at defendant's request, prior to her being adopted. The defendant then seemed very fond of the child. Evidence was given by several other witnesses; including teachers at the kindergarten Softool, two matrons, and police officers. THE DEFENDANT'S CASE. For the defence, Mr. Mazengarb said that he did not propose to justify the thrashing meted out to.the child, and even if; his instructions were to do so he would not caie to act.upon them-..- 1 iFrom the beginning the defendant had realised her error, and regarded it-with ■regret and sorrow before the'matter aim into the hands of the police. It was expressed immediately after the incident. This was the first thrashing she had given the child, and it was to be the last. She deplored the beating, but ■counsel hoped to show that under the circumstances of this case no offenoe had been committed. It was incongruous (that a person holding herself ac the protector of a, child—a mother who is evidently devoted to the child —should *be ibefore the Court on a charge of assault and wilfully ill-treating the child. < A passionate devotion and wilful iU-treat-iment. could not co-exist, aaid the proof of the expressions of devotion should negativel the idea of wilful ill-treatment. Counsel thenreferred to the sections of the Crimes Act and the Infants Act justifying the u^e of force by way of correction and. discipline, and stated that the defendant had no intention of exceeding the degree of force allowable and proper, and, in fact, did not know that she'was doing so./ A mistake of fact, he submitted,'was a good defence where it negatived the guilty intention necessary to constitute a crime, and in the absence of any guilty knowledge no, conviction could be entered. He submitted that the, mother honestly and on reasonable grounds believed that the punishment she set out to administer was necessary for the child's welfare. With the knowledge siie had of the child's antecedents and early environment, and being aware of the child's propensities for stealing and untruthful ness, she resolved that the habits /mist be broken. Her motive was good, and under those circumstances the beating was not a criminal act, but an exceedingly bad error of judgment. After referring to the unfortunate parenthood and early life of the child, and t!?c action of the defendant in adopting 'her, having an attachment and great pity for her, nnd taking her and clothing her without any payment by way of premium, as well as taking out an insurance policy on the child'a life, coun-

sel said that these and other acts,'such as taking the child to entertainments and making her clothes, were not the acts of an' inconsiderate parent or careless foster-mother, who showed a -solid-; tude for the child's good. Mr. Mazengarb then ..spoke' of the incident at the kindergarten which caused the mother's: apprehension. . ■,■ ' ' i • (Proceeding.} •'"■ •