ALLEGED NEGLECT OF A CHILD

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXX, Issue 14976, 23 April 1909, Page 5

ALLEGED NEGLECT OF A CHILD

[Per Press Association.] WELLINGTON, April 22. Alfred Southee and Matilda Ann Southee were charged before Mr W. G. Riddell. 5.M.., to-day with having neglected Stanley Croak Southee, under fourteen years of age, so as to cause him. unnecessary suffering or injury to his health. Evidence tor the prosecution was brought to show that the child had been tied to a verandah post for several hours, and on another occasion had been left alone in the house with a dog. When a police constablo visited the accused’s home the boy, according to evidence, came running out from under the house. He was ill-clad and complained of being hungry. Mr Jackson, counsel for defendants, submitted that wilful neglect had not been proved. The boy was an adopted child, for whom no premium had been received. When he had been tied up it was simply done to keep him out of harm’s way. His Worship held that it was unnecessary to call the male defendant, as he was absent at his work at the period of the particular alleged neglect. In her defence Matilda Ann Southee denied that she had been guilty of neglect. She admitted leaving the child alone, but had given him his dinner before doing so. There were, neighbours in close proximity, and she had on occasions left her own little girl in charge of the house. She had purposely clad him in old clothes, which must have been torn by the dog. “ Adopted children,” remarked Mr Riddell. “ unfortunately rarely receive the samo attention as natural children.” Ho accepted defendant’s statement ns to the clothes. To sustain the present charge two factors were necessary, wilful neglect and ill-treatment. As to the latter, he was not. prepared, to convict. The correct evidence to prove such should he medical testimony. His Worship maintained that when defendant went away she should have taken the child with her. However. the case must, be dismissed, as well ’ as that against Alfred Southee, who was away at the time, and had no knowledge of it. In conclusion, his Worship remarked, that if defendant could not give equal attention to the adonted child as "she favoured her na-

tural child he should be taken away from her.