A SHOCKING CASE.

NZ Truth, Issue 100, 18 May 1907, Page 5

A SHOCKING CASE.

The Jury Acquit Both of the Accused.

PARENTS CHARGED WITH CHILD^iURDER. Evidence of a Filthy and Wretched Home.

ft! shocking case occupied the attention of Mr Justice Cooper and a jury at the Supremfe Court Cranm- ■ al Sittings all day and into the , night of Tuesday last. The crime charged, that of neglecting and. doing to death a helpless infant, is a class of offence far too frequent mi New Zealand amd Australia, but it is seldom that the' persons charged are the married parents-. • The persons charged "m this instance were Charles and Emily Higgison, and their offence, which 'was set forth m foulcounts m th© indictment, was of having killed and slain one Susan Higgison by neglecting to provide it with the necessaries of lSfe. The offence was set >forWi as haying been odmmdtted at Greytown oh March' 12 last. r r * Mr' M. Myers prosecuted for the Crown, and Mr Watford defended the ! pair, who pleaded not guilty. „ The aficused ate young people ; and the htis^and , i$ a. faidy intelli^nt young main, a laborer by occupatiori. He is stunted m growth, and the evidence of his mother showed him to be one of a brood of twenty reared by her. The female acciised is distinctly of a. degenerate! appearance. Her features are cruei amd repulsive. Decent tip-rearing s-he never had, the refinements of a civilised -home she had .never known, and her poor life, her ignorance aM uncouth nature were eyen pleaded by her counsel as olie of the reasons the jury should sfet her at liberiTjr. ' Against the husband a wealk case was * made out by theCrown, and at the donclusion oi the evidence for the prosecution, \ His Honor directed the jury to acquit Urn. This was done, and.- , Higgison later en gave evidsnee on the behalf of his miserable, unhappy and weeping wife who sat m the dock silently imploring the v pity of everybody. • ' The Crown prosecutor did not dwell too long on the facts of the case. He stated that the child was born on January 15, and -Was called Susan. He related ihow the child, iifter its birth,' began to waste away and "that the mother wioulid not he bothered m even giving the child th-e foreast. Everywhere ther-e was filth, and everything was . filthy, and' he contended that a strong case would be nrade against both accused. Evidence was th®n given, amd toe first witness was a" very TAIiKATIVE ELDERLY • FEMALE named Elizabeth. Mary J^orris, who i* j a nurse and 5s tine wife of Henry Morris, of Greytowni. It was this witness who had Jbrougbt; Susan into the world on tiie morning eff Jai\ 15 of this jrear ; , : .and i ,to witness it seemed to be >a. Weal tiny, wellndeveloped child, though she did not weigh it> Tihis wi'taiess remained ih the Higgison's house for about' five or six days, and . the child during those days seemed to be getting .on well. After that she considered that ttie child was not getting the care ito-at was necessary, and tiie ' mother objected to the child being; fed on her i breast, though she had plenty of milk. "Why did she object ?'< asked Mr Myers, and the wjitness reply was "It was an idea of her own- \S9ne did not. want to be bothered/" The nurse .stated further that the mother could have suckied her child at a little personal jnoonvenienoe,. The witness said she endeavored to get the mother to nurture her chili!, ibiut she continued to object. The female / accused had plenty of assistance to 1 look after the child, , but notwithstanding, it was\ kept m a very dirty condition. The mother's neglect became, so shameful to the witmess tJia't she remonstrated with her and told her there would he trouble over, it. From about the first to the third Of March the witness took charge of the child while the mother was m Wellington, and as a result of that care it improved, though when she took the Dhild it was m a terrifole condition. When the mother handed it over a bottle containing soar milk "was delivered with it, and*wh«n the apparently inhuman mother topic the child back, the witness told her that the baby would die and there would be trouble. Several times she spoke m his presence the witness accused, the female of neglecting Susan. She told Mr Wilford that her evidence was not exasger"atedv ajnd counsel went on to surest that the exaggeration was due to the fact that Mrs Higgison and Mrs Murray (witness' daughter) were "unfriendly. The witness >hajd on one occasion sent her daughter to look after , Mrs Higo--son, and there was no objection raised, the ground being that Mrs Murray was not a fit person to be m the house. - ; Was it •■because of the class of woman she is ?— No. Do you know what sort of a woman she is ? She is "no class," she is an honourable woman. I mean by the way she lives ?— She lives all right. Has she not been living with a man named James ?— Tha«t is a lie. And day after day they walked' out arm m arm ?— No.: Wasn't her husband employed toy a .Chinaman ?— No. And didn't the Chinaman -Kck* frim out for STEALING VEGETABLES ? No. Both' His Honor and Mr Myers intervened at this stage, and Mr Wilford was ruled out of order, but the witness denied that there had been any ill-feelmg between the accused and her daughter, and the witness em-> phatically stated that for Mrs Higg-i---sonshehad done her '''hutmost," and for her trouble had only received 15s. It next transpired that, the child was deformed and tha/t it had two pairs of lips, though Mrs Morris said it was hardly noticeable. The child, f?he considered, weighed about 84R at 9ft, On the seventy day ftftwii©

MrthMt Was filthy, and)' neglected., | From the witness it was further gathered that the accused's breast was malformed and that a nipple shield and pump had- to be brought into service. Another child, said to have died from consumption, drfed according to the light of this witness mubh .the •same fas Susan' did, -and that , the mother -had f then said that the -doctor had told her that if anything of the kind occurred again he would not give a certificate. Do you sugiffest that • these people killed their other child *— 1 have no ill-feeling against them, and we have never had a cross word m our lives. Would it be right to suggest that you have said th&t these people neglected their children ?— I did say it, attd , L maintain it.. Do you know that during the time the child WS ill the wife was m toed and that the man stayed home and nursed ., the child hour id ter hour ?— No, I. (don't -know, anything of the' kind. . • She went on to say that it was the mother's charge to clean and care for the child, and she did riot expect a man to do it. Would not a man 'be frightened to pick a (Waky up for Jdair Jne wiotuW break it ?-^A Man ' should ' have nothing to do witto an infant. A DOCTOR'S EVIDENCE. Martin A 'Beckett. McCarthy, a duly qualified medical practitioner, oi Grey town, said he knew both the accusod- The male accused's mother brought the child t,o him on Jan. 20. It was m a very dirty condition, and he then formed the opinion that it was starved. ! He knew the family and they were on his honorary list. Be weighied the child and he found it to be sft. ' He considered it his duty ito communicate with the police mftg- ! istraite> He thought tha>t the child should be taken away and looked after by somebody else. He again saw the ohild, and it weighed about 4flft. The next time it was weighed it was 41ft. This was the day before the ohild died. It took its food and it was ravenous. .This did not signify starvation, but . that the child was dying ..• and/ on March 12 it died. Allowing for the weight of its clothes the child was 3£lfc jn weight. In his opinion the death of the child resulted from neglect. , •Neglect m what Way •?— Dirt , and lack of food. ' i ' .-■■-.■ With, proper care and. ordinary food he considered the child would have lived. When he had first seen the child it had gained a. Kjuiarter .- of a pound m three days. He had seen- another Qhiid of the faihily, and it was quite as had- as the one m *j»tiesiioli. He had since been .told that at the timte he had raised Cain; and m that case the child hetid 'freen . oared for by oiei^ibors. The ' phil-d's navel was ,n«ot li^it, amd thds '.was theresuit of the nursing. He considered that the ©ffeot of givifn'g the child sour milk was to practically poison it. In answer to Mr Wilford, the doctor said he Was a general practitioner and not a sspecralist. ., Why did yon not hoT-d a post mortem on thi-s baby ;?— Because I did not want to- I did not think it was neoessa-ry, a-md I had a poisoned hand at the time. ■, "Did you tell one woman that youwere not gicams to hack bones abbut?" next.askod counsel. "What?" thundered the witness, jand the iqjuestion was repeated. "\ never discussed such _ a thing with the woman and I did not, nse such an expression," was the 'doctor's ddignifi-ed -reply. . Mr WilfoM at. great, length crossex'amined the witness regarding certain DISEASES COMMON WITH INFANTS, which went to question whether a doctor could diagnose & case of star-^ vation without holding, a -post mortem, examrimation; aitd wMoh led to the doctor replying that it would be often necessary to hold post mortem examination before death. After that thfe doctor went on to say that he did not regard -Mrs Morris as a capable m.id-wife, Dut termed her a monthly ©urse. He denied that when Mrs Higglsoh, senr., brought' the child to him he was playing a pianola, and kept her waiting. Did you take any interest m the ease at all'?— I took the . gireatest interest. . , • . He denied that on March. 12, when the mate accused arrived at his suresjry, he (Witness) was at the telephone, and said, "I will prove tha* the child was ' starved and give them a big surprise «,nd fright. The only communiicatkm he had ever made m connection with the cbild was to the magistrate. The doctor further denied that after having advised the male accused to get certain things from the chemist, that he rang the chemist up .and advised him not to give the things unless he got thei money, and that the chemist replied, ' ''Yes, I saw to that." These people are very poor? — They never pay their debts. There are many honest' people -who do not ifhrough force lof oircumstances ■?— I do not know. , You are not a colonial then ?— Yes I am. The man goes out playing billiards all day. Mr Wilford : Now, . you he careful about that, I can prove that this poor fel low went biliiard-m axking at nighttime to augment his income. The next witness was a young woman named Isabel Murray, wife of David Murray and daughter of the witness, Mrs Montis. Her evidence was that she knew the two -accused and the dead baby, which she had helped to wash and dress on several occasions. To this witness it seemed that the child was neglected by its mother. The mother could have f Qt l the child had she been willing, but she did not appear to 'be willing, and that the witness had requested • the aco i>sed' to feed the child from 'her b&tot)t, tout sti© refused to do so. All

I ifche time that the accused had : tfe6 child 'it was dirty and neglected-. Very often she ted seen it m the "pram." Even then every thing was dirty, bottle, clothes and all its surroundings. Mr Myers : Did you have a conversation with the accused before the child died ?— Yes. The baby was ill, and both accused were present, aM "I said, "Emily, would you like the baby to live. The accused replied, "1 am not particular." I said, "Would you like it to die," and she replied, "There would be another one soon to take its place." I said, "You're starving this baby.'* and she replied, "I suppose Mother Higgison is putting b\vi& about lio'w>n r *' T(he forod anid dating mother next told tine ■ witness to 'mind'her own business and she accordiwgiy left. . \ Gross-examined by Mr Wilford, the Witness said that , she : arranged with her mother to assisv r her m nursing. The child Susan- was properly aitefaded by her mother, a-rud got as much attention as any other child. She did not thiink her mother would, go 'in for tfie 'business if she did not uhidersfen'd it. ■ The wi'tmeiss next described Viib accused's 'home as A DIRTY HOVEL,and. that she lioid gone iintp this dirty hovel out of feelings , #f kindness' and pity lor the female accused. She was cross-questioned at some leng-th regarding some impropriety with a man named : Jaitnes, which made the witness' indignant, and, of course, she denied any .truth m the assertionHer answers, too, seemed to amuse the dn-lookers at the rear of the court, and His Honor,, who 'had once blefore rebuked them, again very sternly warned them, and *said he wondered that their sense of decency did not prevent them making such a show, especially where the charge was such a serious one. "It is disgraceful," said His Honor, "and on the next interruption or laughing, I will have every man turned out of tale court." ■ ) The witness denied walking aim m arm with James, or of ever having I said of him that James was her walk-ing-stick and that her husband was her., keeper. She denied strenuously that Mrs Higgison ever said she- did ] not want her m her house. Are the statements made by you true ?*—Yes, I take my oath they are. Were you on terms of friendship with her 7--I liked her because. I pit- j ied her. Was it akin to love ■?— I don't love j her. I liked her as I do now. You know the charge preferred against her ?.— I do j And liking her, you make tirese ! statements ?—t had to speak 'the truth. Is there a word of truth m your j statements ?— Certainly there is. ' That she wished hpr baby was dead ? —I never 'said so. She made the statement that she was. not particular | because there would soon foe another one. . That's a terrible thins: for a woman ,to say ?—Not if, it is true. You have not manufactured this statement because she , said something about James ?-No. '.'•■'■ Mr Wilford next got on to the condition of the child. She said it seemed that the child vomited most of the food it took. It vomited up a green colored substance. The* ohild was given condensed milk, water and sugar. Constable Harmer-, of Grey-town, stated that he received a communication from Dr. McCarthy, and m consequence be visited' ithe house of the accused. This was about March 8. The' child- then seemed to be dying, and he got the grandmother to look after it. He saw the child several times up to its death. It was m a weak state and was very than and its clothes were dirty, m fact, according to this officer, EVERYTHING WAS DIRTY. The next witness' 'called Helen HiggisoTi, mother of the male accus^ cd. She Was tendered only for crossexamination by Mr Wilford, and she said that the accused was one of 20. She Bad attended to the child almost every day, There was > so'm'ethitnig wrong, she said, with her daughter-in-law's breast. The baby could not take' the nipple, as there was no nipple for the -dafoy to take. This applied to both breasts. She (witness) had fed the baby as often as she could, and she had taken m fresh cow's milk twice a day. Her daugh-ter-in-law was fond of the child. She was not a good housewife and had no upbringing, though sho could cook a little.- Tire father had done all m h.is power for the child,! and was fond of it. Mr Wilford : It was not the cleanest house m the world,: was it !?— No. I suppose you know -how to look after children, with your experience ?— Yes. ■':--■ The youngest is two years old ?— Yes. Concerning Susan, her grandmother has this to say : It Was sneezing all the time, and it had four lips. She did njost of the Washing for the child ; t'he female accused cU-d not. The qhiHd was fed with a spoon, tot could not keep it down. She had seen her dau-B?hter-in-law endeavour to feed the child from her. breast, but she did not persevere as much as witness would have, and the ohild could have been kept much cleaned than it was. Her 1 son had told her that the child was bad, and she had taken it to Dr. McCarthy. They had waited for that doctor on one occasion from 9 till 11.30, the while he was play- : ing the piano. Dr. McCarthy had prescribed beef juice and cod liver oil for the child, and all his directions were followed. -■ Questioned by Mr Myers, this witness said she saw the female accused attempt to give the child the breast two or three times. Did you ever speak to y6ur daughter about tho child being dirty !~-I did. I told her to keep the ehilti as clean as she could/)

I How many times did you tell 'bee & I— Two or three.tijn.es,. i Did you over see any sour milk m a bottle ■?•— Once. i Was the bottle clean?— NoShe ' further said that when she took the : child to Dr. McCarthy, he did not take its clothes off, though she unloosened the napkins. She- went on to say that the doctor had (been kind to her family and had advanced mon^ ■ey for her husband'B expenses to go Unto the Wellington Hospital .j When I the child died I ITS STOMACH WAS BLUE and distended. '.. , The doctor, recalled, said that when' the .child died ft was practically, ,a skeleton, covered with skin. ".. THat was. the case fof the 'Crown, and, as stated, the male accustid was then discfiarged. Mr Wiiford tlVen called hi. Matthew Holmes, a duly qualified medical practitioner' of Wellington, who said lie had experience with children's diseases m Manchester and Edinburgh. v TJiis doctor gave very lengthy evidence, '■ and . his .opinion was that it was impossible without a post mortem examination for a doctor ,to give the cause of de'afth. as starvation and the symptoms tftait he had heard might betaken to i<rtdicate several diseases m a child. The female accused next went into the witness box, where she began her.eviden.ee,, but breaking down and weeping bitterly the while protesting that she had been kind to her infant and had done every thing m her power; slie was acdommo i da;t6d with a seat on ilie floor of the court. The ohaM, she' said, was always, fed, though it always looked to her to be the same size. "It was. born sneezing, it continsied to sneeze^- arid it died sneezirig," was one of her litterahces. Her husb'aml (iklalt.he could for child, and .sVc .had aiwa'ys done Irer best fof'h; '• civil dr en. Site could do no 'more '{.haa -a hat -she did.Day and- night she jiiit dean tilings on the .infant 1 and . gave it warm milk.-- Heir husband had nursed the oiii-ld while she was lo'oltftog after the rest of the family. She described Mrs Murray's .eyidein.ee as not being thie. : f ;i- was 'respectable. S/lie tried to .make me us bad as herself," she saiid of Mjre Murray > who, she complaiiiied, carried on with ,the man. James, a-nd km tibat ground slie forbade her to enter her house. A^airi she broke out, -I was fond of my children.' I have' kept my house as well as I oould." And more weeping followed, whioh came on all the more when Mr Watford spoke gently to. . ;'...-.:■. THE WRETCHED WOMAN, and said if she wished to go free she must speak up. . ' Her house was a very poor one, she said, and she had never bieen m a nice home, though she had been out to service. . . ■ Can you eiplain why Mrs Morris and' Mrs Murray 'have said all these things about you ?-^-Yes, because I ordered her out of my house.. Her husband was a labouring man, employed by the Borough Council, &nd before that he was digging potatoes. When Mr Myers .cross-exammed her, it came out that . there were three other ohiUdren. agfei'd 4 years, 3 years, and 16 moniths, and .they had been sent to a. receiving hosne at Petone, oh. the order of the Magistrate. ,' Was xb because you Kegiecteu them ? •^-1 dfd all I, cotild for Iflifem. . I have gone witihoift f 6'6ti 'fliy^elf. fot tliti 'sake ; of. my tam'iiy. < . . Her husband also gave evidence, alter which Mr Wilford and Mr Myers addressed the jury-. ■ . His Hohdr, .m summing lip, rather adversely to the accused, described it as a'ii exceedingly painful case, and he thought it could be said without any objection that it w»s quite clear $rat the female accused .'did not manage her household affairs very well. Her own mothef-in-lat7 stated that tile house was hot cleanly, kept, and the jury would also come to the conclusion that either from want of training or from some other defect m her character, she had no idea oflthe responsibility which was attached 1 to her a>s the toother of children and ibirinpang t?lMii tip as a mother lought to, though it was not to follow that because . she; kept her house dirty or did not have a high idea of the • rnantfter bi rearing her ohildi'en that she was to be held guilty of the offence .charged against her. Referring to the fact of the woman's refusal to ifcive yfre cliilfl her, breast. His Honor observed that there seemed to be a growing feeling i- that rii others Were unwilling to . nurture theif children.' He could hot say it was cfinn'nali thouKh it. wag unhat'ui'al. If they gay 6 a child nourishmient though: not fiatural noUi'isßrHent they were not guilty m the eyes' of the. Law. Having 'flealt Ve^y fully, with the evidence. His Honor adjured the jury tliat if thiey dorisidered the accused by '•her toeglect 'accel'feteted the .dfeath Of the infant, tlrey should find her guilty. The Juty, however, after a very lengthy retirement, brought m a verdict of not 'guilty, "land, arccommemfed thiat dn future cases of this nature, a post mortem examination should b© held.