ALLEGED CRUELTY TO A CHILD.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLVIII, Issue 8145, 17 December 1904, Page 2

ALLEGED CRUELTY TO A CHILD.

The hearing of the case waß resumed on Friday before Mr Turnbull, S.M. One of the defendants, Elizabeth Johns, was called by Mr Crump. She said she lived in Invercargill 8 or 9 years ago. The statement made by her to the constable that she was the mother of Elsie Johns was not true. She was its mother by adoption only. The name of the child was Christina Ellen Price. She had kept the adoption perfectly secret, more for the child's sake than her own. Personally she would never have divulged the truth if she had not been forced to. The injury to the child's nose was inflicted at Mere Mere some 4£ years ago. She was awkened one night by hearing the child crying. She went to the cot and noticed the child's nose was bleeding. Wiped off the blood and in the morning discovered the injury had been caused by rats biting her. The house was infested with rats. The injury to her head had been caused by falling off a chair. It was about 4£ years ago that they left Mere Mere. She and her husband had worked like slaves on their section at Rawhitiroa. They had had to cross-cut through logs five feet thick. They had found it very hard to keep going but nevertheless they did not owe anyone a shilling. The child had little to do in the way of work. She helped to pick fungus, opened the gate for Mr Johns and got bullis from the swamp. When she was lost recently she did not have the black eye. She had got some small marks of old standing. She had got some of the marks by falling down in the shed where she was in the habit of playing with a dog. She frequently had occasion to chastise the child. The last time was about three weks ago. She was then punished for taking all the. screws out of a sewing machine. The strap produced (a very small one) was the only instrument she ever used for punishing the child. The weals on her back, described by Dr Harrison, she could not account for. A mark on the eye was accidentally caused by witness who threw a part of a Bmall broom at the pup and accidentally struck the child on the head. The marks on her forehead were not there when she was lost. Could not account for the marks on her back. She had a boil on one of her elbows. Some of the scars on her body were the marks of old sores. They broke out all over her when she was teething. She was well clothed when she was lost. Witness described the clothing in detail. When the child was brought nome witness asked her where she had ben and she replied that she was lost in the bush. When asked how she got her black eye she said she had got it by falling down in the cocksfoot. She gave the same replies to her father. Her clothes were quite dry. Witness was very pleased at her return and took the child in her arms and kissed her. The child pusher arms around the neck of witness and commenced to cry. She said she was very hungry and ate a hearty meal. She was a healthy child and never had an hour's sickness. The constable came out on the afternoon that the child was found. He spoke to Mr Johns. She saw him pulling the child's clothes up and then she went up to him. He said to the child, "Your mother gave you that black eye." "Your mother hit you with the broom." He did not give the child a chance to really explain. He asked for a medical examination. He asked her to have the child brought in and she agreed. On Sunday she was at the sewing machine when the constable arrived, and said he had come for the child to take her to the doctor. She said, "you told me to bring her in on Monday." He said Dr Harrison wanted to see her quickly as she might be suffering from blood-poisoning. He showed no sympathy for them in their work and hurried the child away. The child had plenty of clothes. Daniel Johns said he had heard the evidence given by his wife and he could corroborate in so far as it came within his own knowledge. He had not chastised the chil.d recently, not for seven or eight months. He had good and sufficient reasons to do so and had warned her he would do so again if she repeated a certain action. He had used a little twig from a plum tree. It was on the clotning and could not mark her in any way. The night the child was lost was a windy night, cold and a few drizzling showers.

Mr Crump called the child. She said she went over the hill to get bullis. It came on to rain and she went into the bush. She was in the bush and was falling about all night and was sore all over. She heard her father and mother calling all night. Was trying to go towards them. She kept turning every way. Did not get out of the bosh until the morning. Remembered her mother whipping her for damaging a sewing machine. That was long before she was lost. Sne was whipped with the strap produced. No one had told her what to say in Court. She had broken her father's watch a long time ago. Her father gave her four cuts for breaking the second watch. A mark on her ear had been caused by her mother 'striking her with a bit of a handbroom. The broom was thrown at the pup but struck her. The Magistrate said in the face of the evidence he must dismiss the case. At the same time, in view of the doctor's evidence, the police were perfectly justified m bringing the, case forward. He would also say that probably the police were guided somewhat by the remark, of the Deople in the neighborhood. He would iav of those people that if there was no foundation -for their remarks it was time their tattle was .topped But if they really did know : anything of illtreatment of the child they, if they had • .park of ' faujnanit? , shouYd ha^conE forward and given evidence to assist the P o^ t m J Ee . PWMcutwn. The case