ALLEGED ILL-TREATMENT OF A CHILD.

Evening Star, Issue 11656, 17 September 1901, Page 5

ALLEGED ILL-TREATMENT OF A CHILD.

A PAINJjUL CASE. Ab the Police Court this morning, beforo Mr C. C. Graham, S.M., Hugh Folley and Funny Folley were charged with,- on the 9th iiist., having (he custody, control, and charge of a boy Hugh Folley, under the age of fourteen years, wilfully ill-treating such child. Mr Hanlon defended. The Sub-inspector stated that this '.vas a very painful case. The male and female accused occupied a house (No. 42) in Hope street. The man was a canvasser, and had been employed in this district for some time. The boy was the son of the female .•incused, but not of the male accused. According to their own statements they had been drinking heavily for a fortnight, and it was through their drinking bout that the child had been neglected and illtreated. On Monday week last, according to the child's statement, the father and mother quarrelled. The mother got very angry with the boy, picked him up in her arms, and severely bit him about the face. About midnight the child had to escape from the house in his shirt, and go to a neighbor's place for protection. On rhe Wednesday iho police were called to the house to interfere, and when the constable called at the place about eleven o'clock in the morning lie found the child shivering with cold, with a short shirt on and no other clothing. The mother was standing by in a state of drunkenness, and had the nppearance of having been in that state for many days. That cveninc the Society for the Protection of Women and Children interfered, and the Rev. Cur-zon-Siggers, accompanied by Mrs Ansell, the secretary, took the child to the hospital, where it had been ever since. On the Wednesday the male accused was arrested suffering from delirium tremens, and had lo be locked up, and afterwards remanded to the gaol for medical treatment until yesterday, when he was discharged ;\s cured. "Considering the condition of the male and female accused, it, was quite consistent with the child's version that he was submitted to gross cruelty, mid if the cruelty were proved to His Worship's satisfaction, he (the sub-inspector) thouuht that the child ought to be taken away from the people and committed 'to the' Industrial School. Constable Lane gave evidence as to the boy's eye being very black and partialis closed. There was also a slight scratch on the side of the face. The mother was under the influence of drink. He asked the woman what had happened to the child, and she said that her hnsband came home between two and three in the morning and put her and the boy out of the house, at the same time kicking the child in the eye. She also said that she struck the child on the side of the face with an umbrella. He told her to ta.ke the boy lo the hospital for treatment, but she "said she wonld not—that it was her child, and she would look after him. Marcraret Sullivan, living close by the accused in Hope street, stated that the boy came to her house between one and two in the morning with a black eye, saying that his father had sent him to "her. 'The mother came for him in the morning, and she handed him over to her. The mother was mad drunk. She was running Tip and down the street, and was really a maniac To Mr Hanlon: The accused had been living in Hope street for seme months. They had always behaved themselves. The child was always well clad, and was a wellbehaved boy. He had never before borne the appearance of having been ill-treated. It seemed to be an isolated case of crueity. Hush Folley, aged eight, said that lis mother struck him with an umbrella on the face and bit his eye. His mother way ill at the time. Ann Ansell, secretary of the Society lor the Protection of Women, and Chifdren, gave evidence as ;o taking thi bov to the hospital. Dr Hall, house surgeon at the hospital, •said that the boy was suffering from a bruise and abrasion about the riaht orbit and the left side of the cheek. The mark on the eye was consistent with the boy's account of how it happened. There was nothing to give color to the suggestion that the boy was struck with an umbrella. To Mr Hanlon: From appearances, tbe boy's account of how the injuries occurred would not have suggested itself to him. Mr Hanlon submitted that the case must he dismi-sed on two grounds. First of all, the information did not disclose an offence under the Act. The accused were charged with wilfully ill-treating a child, but there was no mention in the information of "and in a manner when by unnecessary suffering had heen inflicted upon the child or its health injured." Further than that, if those words were added to the information, there was no evidence that the boy's health was endangered, or that unnecessarv suffering was inflicted upon the child, for all the marks that he bore were n slight abrasion and a black eye. Apart from the information being bad", the police had not called any corroboration of the bov's story, and the Act made it very explicit that the evidence must be corroborated bv independent testimony. It must be corroboration implicating the accused. Therefore, upon these two ground* counsel submitted that the case must be dismi-s. d. The evidence in fact, all pointed in the direction of the boy having been well looked after. Ho was not submitted to undue cnieltv. The Sub-inspector: One of the ablest lawyers in Dunedin wv consulted before this information was drawn out. Mr Hanlon : Who is he? The Sub-inspector: T ?m not going lo disclose his name. Mr Hanlon : Well, tell him he is wrong. even though he is the ablest lawyer fn Dunedin. His Worship said that he was satisfied that the information was good enough, but he was afraid that there was not sufficient corroborative evidence in the terms of the Act, which was very clear on the point. There must be corroborative evidence before a. conviction could ensue. The Sub-inspector: What about the evidence of Mrs Sullivan, and the woman's own statement excusing herself by saying that her husband kicked the child in' the face? His Worship said that the child's evidence was unsatisfactory. Mrs Follev said her husband kVked 'the child in the eye. but the latter denied that, while the evidence of the doctor went to show that the injiirv could not have been caused by a kick. _ He was inclined to thr-k that a very improper assault had been made upon the child, but it had not been proved in the terms of the. Act. He was also inclined to look upon it as an isolated act caused bv the giving wav to drink. He would not convict, but would caution » them to bp more careful in the future. Tf any such thing occurred again thev would be severely dealt with. They would bo cautioned and discharged. Mr Hanlon : That is to say, the case is dismissed. His Worship: Yes.