THE WAYNES CASE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXIII, Issue 16035, 16 September 1912, Page 4

THE WAYNES CASE.

TO THE EDITOII. Sir, —Believing thai the general public is anxious to know why the Society for the Protection of Women and Children in conjunction with other social organisations working in this city has petitioned Parliament to grant a relieving of this case, I intend to tot forth its most salient features. In November, I9io, the president of the Society for tho Protection of Women and C'j ildrcn received two letters stating that certain allegations had been made to the writer with reference to the treatment of a little girl, eight years of age, residing with adopting parents at New Brighton. As the Society exists principally for the purpose of investigating charges of neglect or cruelty said to bo practised on children, I, as its then inspector, was consequently instructed to ma.ko inquiries into the' allegations. Having done so, I came to the conclusion that this was a case for the police to deal with, and reported accordingly to the committee. The case was then "handed over to the police, tho Society having dealt with it for exactly one day. It is well known that the child was removed from the custody of the fosterparents in December, 1910, by the order of the Magistrate. Early in October, 1911, the foster-parents applied for a rc-hcaring of their case to the Magistrate who had originally tried it, but their application was refused. Later in the same, month the fosterparents petitioned Parliament for a full inquiry into all the circumstances of the case.

An inquiry was granted, but it was so far from being the full one asked for that the persons who had made the allegations against the fester-par-ents, by reason of which the child had been taken from them, were not subpoenaed, though one would have supposed that the foster jjarents, professing themselves as having been unjustly dealt with, would have been most anxious to put their accusers in the witness box and submit them to so severe a cross-examination that, had their allegations befn the outcome of i malice, they would inevitably have be- | trayed that fact while in the hands of | the' foster-parents' lawyer. j Certainly" I was subpeenaed to attend tho inquiry he'd by the Petitions Committee in Wellington, but as I knew nothing about the case, except what bad been told me, it was very obvious that* the only reason I was subpoenaed was to make me divulge the name of the person who had written the two letters to the president of the Society stating that allegations against the fos-ter-parents had been made to her. As I onlv had a few hours' notice to go to Wellington and fully believed that the persons who had made statements , about the case to the police would be present at the inquiry, and as the Society, as already stated, had closed its connection with the case ten months previously, our Executive Committee did not f el called upon to do anything further in the matter at that time than to request one of its honorary solicitors to be present at the inquiry to protect the Society's interests should thev be jeopardised. Havfn? held a one-sided inouiry into the case the Petitions Committee recommended Parliament to return the child to its foster-parents, but not until after the lapse of about four months. and it was on tho return of the child that certain information and affidavits signed by neighbours (most of whom have since left'the district), and which substantially corroborated the allegations formerly made, first to me and then to the police, were brought tr tho Society. Those, together with representations from an- independent souro?. which cannot be impeached, decided the Society to support a petition to the House which was then in course of preparation. The oc.tiiion was sent to Wellington at the "end of February, but was too late for pre-entation then, owing to the prorogation of Parliament or; i March 1 of this year; but it was fni ally presented on the first day of thr 1 present session. The Petitions Commi+i te-o having twice unanimously recotn--1 mended the Government to grant the petition, now being asked for, justifies the position taken wo by this and other societies, and pvoves that no anoloty is due from tho Society for the Protection of Women and Children to anyone for its present attitude towards this ! case, but rather that it 3 continued exI i<=enoe would justly have been jeowar- | dised-htd it " cfecl otherwise. .All that is wanted is a full inouiry, with every 1 person who has any knowledge of the car.e present. Tho challenge thrown out by one of your correspondents that the Society should deny, if it can, the statement made bv Mr G. W. Russell i n th* House, that "the Society has initiated the present' agitation." « thus answered. A« a matter of fact, tho question as to who first tool-: action is quit? im. material, and that Mr Russell should, by virtue of such a puerile suec;estionj attack a Society which he previously urged tho Hon T). Buddo, then Minister of Internal Affairs, to subsidise, on the ground that it was rendering valuable public services, which only a societv com posed of enthusiastic women could render, and that public

money could not be better spent, only shows the weakness of his case. Hoping that Parliament will grant a full and impartial inquiry, dealing with all the allegations made so as to secure justice to tho child, the fosterparents, tho Magistrate, and the enormous principle involved.— I am, etc., M. H. LISSAMAN. Late Inspector-Secretary Society for the Protection of Women and Children. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Permit me to correct misleading impressions created by tho very abusive letter of Mr Haynes. The following facts are not disputed by either side. Mr and Mrs Haynes and Mr and Mrs Goring publicly made charges of the gravest nature. The Magistrate was charged with causing a grave miscarriage of justice; perjury was alleged against the police; the Society for the Protection of Women and Children were charged with various offences, while a neighbour, it is still alleged, was actuated by spite in giving evidence. The Hayneses and Gorings were quite within their rights in making any charrre3, but it is only right and proper that they should be called upon to substantiate their statements, and that their allegaions should be inves-iirra-ted by a full and public inquiry. Tin's is what they asked for.

The statement made by Mr Haynes that an inquiry was actually held in Christchurch is absolutely too silly to waste your space in discussing, as everyone knows that no inquiry was ever held in Christchurch. This is as far as the Haynes side of the ease is concerned and cannot be disputed. >T mirrht here mention that I was staying with friends (now in Sidney 1 * who w"re residing in tho vicinity, when the case first started, and I have no hesitation in saving there is no truth in the statement that the ease oriri'iated from tho spite of a neighlwnr. The contrary can easily bo oroved.

The present position in this: A F--coTid petition has now been presented to Parliament, this time from tho other ride, • containing statements of a far more serious nature, and the Petitions Committee, that dealt with it were unanimous in recommending the Government to grant the full inquiry asked for. WliPn the petition was referred back to tb« Committee, they unsnimnurlv reaffirmed thoir verdict. Tin's -etition clearly stated certain events and incidents, which tb« petitioners wished inquirpd into. Yet it i* seriously proposed to practically refuse to the petition, by rnbsfcitntin<T an inoni'-v of anther na+nre nnd into a snbi<»at +h.«t i"= not onco mentioned in the petition.—T a"i etc., H. JUTSUM.