THE CHILD-BEATING CASES.

Evening Star, Issue 6860, 26 March 1885, Page 2

THE CHILD-BEATING CASES.

The hearing of the information against Alexander Fleming for assaulting John Fleming at South Dunedin on the 12th inst. was resumed, at the City Court, Maclaggan street, this afternoon, befoie Messrs Gourley and Fenwick, Justices. Mr W. Macgregor appeared to prosecute on behalf of the police; Mr J. Macgregor defended. Mr W. Macgregor explained that Mr Dcnniston (in whose behalf he appeared) was unavoidably detained in the Supreme Court.

Dr Ferguson was recalled. Mr Gourley : The Bench want to ask you, doctor, if in your opinion the heating this boy received was greater or more than was necessary for correction in an ordinary case of a disobedient child ?

Witness : Certainly it was far more than I should give a child of mine. Of course people entertain different opinions as to the necessary amountof severity. Mr Fenwick: Can you judge from your inspection of the child whether the marks were caused by the beating he received from the accused ? Witness : Of course there were marks of old bruises and marks of recent bruises. The recent bruises, I understand from the evidence, were administered by the stepmother. Yes, but you know the date on which the assault on which the accused is charged took place—the 12th inst. ?—The bruises would not have disappeared by that time. The bruises caused by a beating on the 12th inst. would not have disappeared on the date on which you examined him ?—-Not from a severe beating. Do you think, doctor, that the bruises caused by the beating on the 12th were unnecessarily sivcre or cruel, or were the result of such reasonable chastisement as a parent would have the right to inflict on his child in the case of misbehavior ?As I said before, parents differ in the chastisement necessary. I would not think of punishing one of my own children in such a manner as to leave marks such as were present on this child. They were evidently the result of a very smart whipping. From a slight whipping the bruises would have been obliterated before that time.

Mr Gourley : What date did you see them on, doctor ? Witness : On the 20th.

Mr Fenwick: Were there bruises of a still further date than those given by the accused, or were the whole of the bruises you saw likely to have been caused by the whipping he got on the 12th ?• Witness : The bruises seemed to be of a different color. The colors were all fading. The recent bruises were red ; the others were of a blue or violet tint—fading off towards a lighter color. They were likely to have been caused about the date of this beating ?—The appearances were quite consistent with that. Mr J. Macgregor was about to further cross-examine the witness, when

Mr W. Macgregor objected, on the ground that the witness hart already been crossexamined. He had been merely re-called for the satisfaction of the Bench. The Bench : Seeing that this is a very serious case, and we have thought proper to rc-call the doctor and put a few extra questions to him, we think it but reasonable that counsel for the accused should have an opportunity of cross-examining the witness. Mr J. Macgregor: My question will be very harmless. It is simply this: Wotild not the time the bruises remained vary with the temperament of the child ? Witness: Yes. Ihen assuming that on the 20th you found some old bruises, the mere fact that the beating causing them was inflicted on tho 12th would not necessarily indicate that the beating hj id been very severe ?—Well, it v;• 'iild indicate that it was not slight. 1 .trtmit that. It would be indication of a smart whipping ? —Yes. That is all that can be inferred ?—Yes, with some flexible instrument like the whip produced. Mr J. Macgregor said that the first question to be determined was whether the case sheuld not be disp au\ of summarily. Mr Fenwick : Before you proceed further I understand that we have no power to deal with it summarily under the present information. Mr Macgregor : There is no doubt whatever of it; you can find them guilty of a common assault. I will undertake to produce ample authority to satisfy you on the matter. Mr Gourley : I think it would be better if you would produce the authority you say you have. If it is inconvenient for you to do it to-day, we are quite satisfied to adjourn this case till to-morrow.

Mr Fcnwick : Wo have sonic doubt about it, because we have had two or three legal opinions. Some are to the effect that we have summary jurisdiction ; others that we have not; and as we have some cloabt ourselves we prefer adjourning the case till tomorrow, so that wc may have a reliable opinion. Mr Macgregor then urged that the charge as laid was a very serious one, it being laid under the Offences Against the Person Act, section 17, which permitted of an offender, wli3ii found guilty of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm, being sentenced to three years' imprisonment. The evidence adduced for the prosecution clearly showed that the offence new charged was not the sort of offence contemplated in that section. The language there used was " unlawfully and maliciously," and it was necessary that the injury should inflict grievous bodily harm. It was unnecessary that he should explain the meaning of the word "maliciously." Mr W. Macgregor: You had better. Mr J. Macgregor assumed that the Bench had common sense if his learned friend had not. Before the Bench could commit they must be iatfsficd that .there was -prima facie evidence that the accused did unlawfully and maliciously inflict grievous bodily harm upon his son. Supposing that the father had administered, as the medical witness put it, a smart whipping with a flexible instrument, that was merely evidenee of a common assault. The Bench, if they decided to commit, should not consider whether the accused could be found guilty on the evidence of a common assault, because unless they believed that he maliciously did what was charged their duty was to dismiss the present information without prejudice to a fresh information for common assault being laid, as was done in the first instance. That, he confidently submitted, was the clear duty of the Bench. But he was not now asking that. He was only asking that the information should be treated as an information for common assault. There was no doubt that if they saw fit they could so treat the charge. Mr W. Macgregor submitted that if the case were sent for trial it was competent for a jury to bring in a verdict of common assault, but as the information was laid the Bench had no right to so find. If they were satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out, their clear duty was to commit. So far as he knew, and apparently so far as his learned friend was aware, there was no statutory provision . enabling the Bench to deal with the matter summarily. The Bench : We will adjourn the case until two o'clock to-morrow. Mr J. Macgregor: That is to determine whether it should be tried summarily or there should be a committal ? The Bench : Yes. If we decide we have power to deal with the matter summarily you can open your case and produce cviv'eive. Carrie Fleming was then charged with maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm on Isabella Fleming on the Bth inst. Isabella Fleming, aged five years, was the first witness examined, and her evidence was obtained with great difficulty. She deposed: Alexander Fleming is my father, and Carrie Fleming, the accused, is my stepmother. A Whip made the marks now on my arm. There are other marks on my hips. Those other marks were made with a whip. I know that produced is a whip. Miss Condon (the accused) made the marks with a whip. Cross-examined : I am sure I was beaten with a whip* I was beaten sometimes with a strap. John Fleming stated: I am the son of Alexander Fleming. The accused is my step-mother. I stayed villi tliein at Kensington. I remember two Sundays ago my sisle." Bella got a hammering from my stcp-

mother. Mystep-mothertoldmysister to take her clothes off, and she gave my sißter a hammering with a whip. She told my sister to take all her clothes oIT. I would know the whip again. The whip produced is the same. It was a bad hammering. My sister did not cry. My sister was m her bedroom when she was whipped. She was lvins down on her face on a bed. She was whipped because she wet the bed. Before the whipping I put the sheet to the fire not to get her into a row. I nut; the sheet on her bed again afterwards. I dried the sheet on Saturday morning. Cross-examined : ft is two weeks ago on Sunday that my sister got this whipping. I cannot tell how I remember it was on a Sunday, or how it was two weeks ago. Some person has been telling me what to say. I was told to tell the truth. Mr Anderson told me. No other person told me what to say. My sister got the beating in the morning and at night. I was outside when my sister got whipped. I was in the yard. I did not sec her getting the whipping. My sister was called in. I did not see -what she was whipped with. I saw the marks. I saw her getting whipped on Sunday night. I was inside the bedroom at the time. I was not in bed. My sister Isabella was not in bed. Her clothes were off. She was beaten with a whip. She did not cry. Re-examined : My sist3i- got two beatings on that Sunday. Mary Fleming (aged nine): The accused is my step-mother. I lived with my father and the accused at Kensington. I remember my sister Isabella got a whipping from the accused. I think it is two weeks since.

Sergeant Macdonell gave evidence as to visiting the accused's house on the 20th inst., and as to the state he found the girl Isabella in. Accused said that she had beaten the child for messing the bed. Her husband told her to do so, as he thought a good beating would cure them. Witness replied that that was a wrong way to correct them, and that the proper way was to watch them at night. During the conversation she stated that she had beaten them with a whip. Dr Ferguson stated that he examined Isabella Fleming on the 20th inst. The back part of her body was covered with bruises, recent and old. He was told at the time they had been produced with a whip, and the recent bruises were consistent with that. Some of the older bruises might have been produced with a strap. The earlier bruises might have been caused any time from three days to a fortnight. A slight whipping could not have produced such bruises. Mr W. Macgregor : Do you think, doctor, a series of thrashings such as appear to have been given here woidd be likely to depress a young child of that age ? Witness: Yes ; a series of them would. And would that prove injurious to its health ? If long-continued I should imagine it would. Cross-examined: The child is apparently healthy. She is not quite recovered so far as the bruises are concerned. She i 3 more spirited and lively now that she is recovering from the bruises than she was last Friday. Mr Gourley: Is there any danger of permanent injury ? Witness : So far as I can gather I do not think so. Do you consider that the beating this child got was unnecessarily severe and more than a child ought to receive as an ordinary punishment for misconduct ? Yes. You understand what I mean by the question ?—Yes. I consider that any whipping producing such marks on a child of this tender age would be unnecessarily severe. The accused, having been cautioned, reserved her defenfce, and was committed for trial. Bail was allowed in her own recognisance for L2OO, and two sureties for LIOO each. The Bench : Do you elect, Mr Macgregor, to conduct the prosecution in this case in the Supreme Court or to leave it to the Crown ? " Mr Macgregor replied that he would leave it to the Crown. A charge against Carrie Fleming of assa-.lting Mary Fleming on the 16th inst. was withdrawn by the police.