ILL-TREATING A CHILD.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXIII, Issue 16061, 16 October 1912, Page 11

ILL-TREATING A CHILD.

A SHOCKING CASE. FINED £5 AND COSTS. At the Magistrate's Court, before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., yesterday, Mary Elizabeth Halo was charged with having ill-treated her five-year-old illegitimate child. Accused pleaded not guilty. Mr Cassidy appeared for accused, and Sub-Inspector M'Grath conducted the case for the police. Ethel Musson, who had lived next door to accused, eaid that accused used to get into a temper and lost control of herself. She would thon thrash the child unmercifully. She threw him out of the door ouo day on to the asphalt, and he came to witness for comfort. There was a scar on his knee. Another day accused whipped him and knocked hiiu about for twenty minutes in the washhousc. Witness threatened to send for tho police, and accused said, " You can do what the devil you like." Accused said that she would stiffen tho boy out. When accused was in a tantrum, she used fear£ul language. Witness had noticed bruises on tho lad at different times, and a black eye. In reply to Mr Cassidy, witness said she had seen a mark round the boy's eye, and it lasted for about a fortnight. Mr Cassidy here read a letter from the schoolmaster of Sydenham School, stating that the boy attended there for three or four months. Ho was always clean and neatly dressed. Witness said that she had never alleged neglect against accused. .. The child always appeared to be well looked after.

William John Musson. another neighbour of accused, stated that ho saw the boy "getting a hiding" with the broom, with which accused was knocking him down. Witness remonstrated with accused, who was swearing 'at the child. Accused replied that tho child was dull, and she would knock some sense into him. The child was well cared for otherwise. Victoria. Alexandra Mathieson said she had lived opposite accused. She had seen her kick the boy and knock him down again and again. Tho child seemed to be well clothed, well fed and clean.

James Kennedy said he had resided next door to accused. He had seen accused beat the child exoessively, especially on one occasion when she thrashed him with the broom. He had heard her use bad language to the boy, expressing the wish that ho wore dead, and saying that she would have no peace until he was dead. Clara O'Brien stated that she had seen the boy going to school one day with blood streaming down one of his logs. Witness saw accused about the matter and threatened to infornr the police. Accused replied that if she didn't thrash the child her husband would do so.

Mr Cassidy said that the occurrences took place some time ago, and accused was now living at Palmerston North, lb was hard, therefore, to get witnesses. He intended to call the evidence of the schoolmaster. Tho Magistrate remarked that there were no allegations of neglect, and the witnesses for the prosecution were all respectable people, and there was no rca.son to doubt their evidence. Defendant, placed in the box, denied having ever beaten the child harshly : or with a broom. She had never thrown I tho child on tho asphalt, She did whip ! him with her open hand. She had | never made bruises on tho boy. »-:o ! had locked him up in the washhouse i onco or twice. She added she bad a j bit of a temper." ~.,*•* „ I Tho Magistrate remarked that ii ac- ! cused possessed " a bit of a temper : he would like to know what ,a whole temper was. He added that he did not think the child had been neglected, but he did think that the accused had an ungovernable temper and was not ftt to control children. .. ! Evidence was also given by Constable Baird and T. M'Gallan, headmaster ot the Sydenham School. . i Mr Cassidy said that the accused and ! h-r husband were poor, hard-working people, and that a heavy fine would press verv hardly on them. His Worship said that if thero had been anv previous record against k<cused ho would have sent her to gaol. Unfortunately tho husband would have to pav the fine. The publicity given to such cases had a deterring effect. He fined accused £5 and costs and gave her a fortnight in which to find the money. AFTERWARDS. Tho witness retired to the back of the Court brooding orer her grievances and casting malicious glances at the witnesses who had given evidence against her. All at onco she came forward and exclaimed dramatically that she could not pay the fine in four weeks, let alono a fortnight—she £ ould sooner go to gaol than pav. Then, pointing to ono witness, sho exclaimed: "That woman ha-, ruined my life—she has ruined niv life!" Her solicitor tried in vain to quieten her, but she continued to expostulate. Tho Magistrate ordered her to bo removed froin the Court, and remarked that accused was showing a samplo of her temper. A constable then took" her out into tho corridor, where her voice could still be hoard in protest. The Magistrate, addressing Mr Cassidy. said that ho felt inclined to reconsider his decision after accused's exhibition. However, he would allow accused a month in which to pay tho fine.