CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 6693, 29 September 1882, Page 2

CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER.

At the Resident Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr Wardell, R.M., Major Edwards, J.P., and Mr Baker, J.P., Christina Jansen, a girl between sixteen and seventeen years of age, was charged with having, on or about the 21st of September, feloniously killed and slain an infant named Henrietta May McCarthy. Mr E. Shaw appeared for the accused. Sergeant Anderson, who conducted the prosecution, called Kate McCarthy, the mother of the child, who had been subpoenaed, bat did not appear. Mr Sbvw asked whether an information had been sworn in the case.

The Clerk of the Court said the information had been sworn by Sergeant Anderson. Sergeant Anderson said be did not think it would be possible to go on without the witness McCarthy. ty. Constable Wilton said he had served her with a summons to attend, hot he bad not seen her that morning. If she had not cleared out he could find her in a few minutes.

The Court then adjourned until 2 o’clock, the witness McCarthy in the meantime having been arrested for disobeying a summons of the Court.

Catherine McCarthy deposed that she was a single woman, and was recently delivered of a female child at the Homo for Friendless Women, on the 18th of August. The child was registered under the name of Henrietta May McCarthy. She kept it for three weeks, and then gave it to Christina Jansen. A Mrs Williams, with whom she had been living, put an advertisement in the paper in order to get the child adopted, and prisoner adopted it, with the sanction of the matron of the Home. The prisoner, who received no remuneration, said she wanted the child for company. The document produced was signed on September 9th, the day when the child was given up. Mr Shaw said the agreement was not stamped, and he asked that the Crown should pay the stamp duty and fine before it was put

in. Witness continued, and stated that the chilli was healthy, with the exception of a sore on its hand. Two days afterwards the prisoner, accompanied by Mrs Wilson, brought the child to the Home, as witness might like to see it. There was a sore on its knee then, but it was otherwise all right. Accused eaidshe bad taken it to a medical man. Dr. Collins aaw it in the Home when it was a fortnight old. She did not see the child again till it was dead, when the accused brought it to her lodgings. To Mr Shaw : Mrs Williams; was not a relative of hers. She" was stopping with her before the child was born, and since. She was 23 years of age. This was her first child, *-b® did not nurse it. She had been a nmae-girl. While she had the child it was fed on condeneed milk and [plain milk. Mrs Sharp was the nurse at the Home. The doctor was not present when the child was born. He came

an hour afterwards. The matron attended her at the birth. She was in bed ten days after the child was born, and she had it in bed with her for nine days. She wanted to get rid of it, and •he instructed Mrs Williams to pnt the advertisement in. She had never seen the prisoner before she came for the child. She sard she was a married woman. She looked Irked a married woman who wanted a child to adopt. She would be surprised to hear that the prisoner was only sixteen years of age. 1 ® matron consented to give the child up wit on making inquiries. When it went away it on y had a flannel petticoat and a dress, ihe matron on the first occasion told the prisoner to call next morning, and the would make inquiries. Witness understood that the matron zaade inquiries, and was satisfied. When the child left ifc bad no hat on its head, and wa® wrapped in a shawl. She told the prisoner how she bad been feeding the child. Prisoner said die had plenty of baby clothes for the child. Ithad no stockings on when it left. The child tooc its food all right while she had it, and apteared to be thriving when it left her. The prisoner smelt of drink when she brought the body the child to witness. They took the body to Dr. Collins, who sent them down to the pilice station. To Sergeant Anderson ; The prisoner told witn<ss she had been married three years. Dr. W. E. Co'lins deposed that he saw the last witnefs at the Home shortly after her confinement. He also saw the child, which seemed to te fairly healthy. He did not examine it very closely. Ten or twelve days afterwards the child was brought to his house by Miss JSfeer and the mother. It was suffering from strumous enlargement of the wrist. It was not then in danger. He prescribed for it. When the child was dead the prisoner and mother called on him to get a certificate of death. To Mr Shaw : He refused to give a certificate. Ho thought they had the dead body with them. The prisoner did not appear to bo drunk, though he did not quite like the look of her. He could not say whether the girl McCarthy could have nursed her child. Strumous disease of the wrist was a serious thing. The patient required a great deal of attention, warmth, and nourishment. He did not see the child’s knee. It would be a long time before the child got better with the best treatment. He would not be at all surprised at the death •of a child suffering from that disease if it were banded over to the care of a girl of sixteen. To Hr Wardell: He did not thjnk the child war going to die. He did not think it necessary to communicate to the matron or the mother the fact that he suspected strumous disease. Patience Steer, matron of the Home_ for Friendless Women, repeated the evidence given by her at the Coroner’s inquest. She had been matron of the Home since last December. When the prisoner first came and asked to adopt the child she said she had been married three years, and was well known to Mr Brittain. Witness told her to come back on Friday in order that she might find out. She asked Mr Brittain if ho knew a Mrs Walpole ({the name the prisoner gave), but ho did not. She made no further inquiries, and she did not tell Kate McCarthy what Mr Brittain had said. Next morning the prisoner came back, and the child was given to her. A document was signed on each side. Witness prepared 4ho document. When the accused returned to the institution with the child a few days afterwards, it was to show its its bad knee. Bhe did not express any wish with regard to it. Mrs Wilson, who was with her, said the ohild would not jive. To Mr ShaW .-. She acted as housekeeper before she was matron, and had no experience as nurse or midwife until she went to the Home. She had been present at all the confinements there, but had never been alone before. There was previously an experienced nurse there. Dr. Collins was honorary surgeon to the Home, and he was always sent for. Since she took charge there had only been ■four births in the Home. She believed Dr, Collins bod been present at three of them. There were seven or : eight inmates. The Home was for women out of employment. The lying-in cases were merely incidental, and the births were often those of illegitimate children, •who were drafted away Co different homes. Inquiries were always made, and the people who took the children were well known. If she had known that the accused was sixteen years old and unmarried, she would not have <been allowed to have the child. The child had no change of clothes when it left, as accused said she had plenty of clothes. From the 11th to the 21st of September neither,she nor any official belonging to the institution made inquiries about the child to see how it was getting on. The accused lived in Hain-iag-street, ten minutes’walk from the Home. The mother did not visit her child or appear anxious about it. If the child had been put out to nurse she would hare considered it her duty to look after it, but not when a child was adopted. She had no suspicion. Since she had been matron ons only of the four, children born ; had been adopted. The children were generally put •out to nurse, and paid for by the mother. ~ In this instance, when the child left the Home, she considered she had nothing further to do with it. The mother left the Wednesday after the child, and went to live with a Mrs Williams, on Plimmer’s-steps. , To Mr Wardell: When the accused brought the child back and said that its knee was bad, she advised her to take it to a doctor. Accused said she had already adopted a. child, which was two years old, and that she wanted another. Elizabeth Harris, wife of Wm. Harris, and the holder of a married woman’s protection •order, repeated the evidence given by her at the inquest. About fourteen days before the child died the accused told witness..that the child was her own, but she afterwards admitted that she had adopted it from the Home, and said she wished to make Walpole (the man with whom she was living) believe it was h«rs. ... [Mr Shaw did not see how this evidence wss relevant to a charge of manslaughter,] [Sergeant Anderson said it showed the object of the accused in getting the child, and her probable desire to get rid of it when that object had failed.] _ _ Witness continued by saying, in her opinion, the child was very much neglected by th» accused, who did not feed it properly, and left it alone from twelve in the day till late at night. On several occasions she said, “Let ♦he little b cry and die.’’ The accused did not seem to understand much about looking after children. When the accused first went to Quin-street she bad no furniture in the bouse but a box. Two days after there was a bed on the floor in the back room. Mr Wardell: Do the landlords in Quinatreet let their houses to people like this f Sergeant Anderson : They are not at all particular in that neighborhood, your Worship.' Witness, to Mr 3baw : Her husband-was in Nelson, and did not give her any support. She supported herself the best way she could. She could not swear how often the accused fed the child. She did not think accused fed the child very much. She would swear that every night but two the child was left alone in the house. She was not aware that a man named Walpole supported the accused, but accused •aid she Intended to make him believe th* child was hie. The accused was so young and giddy that she did not know.what the was about half the time. She was not much wilder than witness, however. Sergeant Anderson produced the deposition of the accused, made before the Coroner, before there wav any charge agdnit her; sad alter she had been cautioned that she need not say anything that might tend to criminate herself. Dr F. B. Hutchinson repeated the evidence given by him before the Coroner with reference to thejxwf mortem examination of the body. The wasted condition of the body, and the death might be accounted for by the disease ; bat be could not say how far the disease had been caused by neglect. A child suffering from that disease would require considerable care. If the treatment described by the witness Harris were true, death would have been hastened, but ho could not say to what extent. ...

To Mr Shaw : The child had disease of the joints and of the lungs. He was decidedly of opinion that all the car© and attention in the world would not have enabled the child to live and grow up. The disease might account for ■the loss of appetite in the child, and he would be surprised to hear that it was in a semi-coma-tose state for the last few days. To Sergeant Audereon : The child required medical attendance. Mr Shaw asked if after the evidence of Dr. Hutchinson, their Worships thought it necessary to go farther. - Mr Wardell said he thought the case had failed entirely up to the present. . # Sergeant Anderson said the only other evidence be had to call was corroborative of that of Mrs Harris. Ho had no fresh facts to bring forward. . , . . , . After some discussion, it was determined to hear other witnesses. ; , J. Monteitb, chemist, of Manners-street, deposed that the accused brought a child to him. He examined it, and told her to take it to a doctor. The child, which looked dean and tidy, had swellings on the wrist and knee. He told her the chili required great, care ; to feed it well, and to take it to a doctor. He told her he did not think it would live long. . Ellen Wilson deposed that she was the divorced wife of W. C. Wilson. ~ - . . [Mr E. Shaw : Then yon are not entitled to that name ?] . ~ Witness : Then I’ll take my oath I m Ellen

McDonald. She was with the accused when she took the child to Mr Monteith s and to the Home. She advised the accused to leave it there, but she would not do so. On the day the accused took the child she was living in Hainiug-street, but moved to Quin-street the next day. It was a fetf days after, before accused got bedding and furniture. The child was in a box, and was pretty well always there. The child appeared to pine away. _ She advised her to look after the child or put it out to nurse. The accused said she did not want the child, and did not care if it died. She considered the people at the Home more to blame than the girl. Any one with any education, and who had travelled a bit, should have been able to see what the girl was. Witness now lived with Mrs Harris. To Mr Shaw : The accused, when she went to the Home, had a different hat on, but wore her fringe. She should rather think the accused was wild, but it remained to be proved which was the wildest, accused, witness, or Mrs Harris. , , , Mr Wardell said if the police had further evidence to produce to show in the face of the doctor’s evidence that there had been neglect that had hastened death, the Bench would be glad to hear it. Sergeant Anderson said all the other evidence he had to produce was simply corroborative of that of Mrs Harris. Mr Wardell said the evidence brought against the prisoner showed that a state of things existed, highly reprehensible and very much to be condemned. The accused had very foolishly applied for the deceased child, and the matron of the institution, without making any proper or reasonable inquiry, handed over the child to her custody. The accused was leading a life that did not qualify her or fit her for the custody of a child. It had been suggested to the Bench that the accused was very young. He had known her since she was a small child, and knew she was very young, and that for her to have charge of a child was a thing that could only lead to trouble and misfortune. It was not necessary that he should make any comment, as the matter had been referred to at the inquest, but he could not help feeling that there was grave negligence somewhere In the child having been placed in the custody of the accused. When she took charge of that child she took upon herself the obligation of nursing and attending to it, and if the Bench were satisfied that she bad wilfully neglected it—neglected to do that which she knew to .be her duty—she would have been guilty of the grave offence of manslaughter Jor murder. After hearing the evidence the Bench were of opinion that if there was neglect it arose not from intention but from want of knowledge. They could scarcely hold the prisoner criminally responsible for the amount of neglect that had been proved. He thought Mrs Harris might well be charged with neglect, seeing that she was the mother of five children, and had the deceased in her house for some .hours without troubling herself about feeding it. It must not go abroad that the accused was not to blame in the matter. Ho wanted it to be understood that if a woman accepted the responsibility of a child she was bound to look after it. He did not think, however, there was a case for a jury, and the information would be dismissed.