A DISGRACEFUL CASE.

NZ Truth, Issue 116, 7 September 1907, Page 6

A DISGRACEFUL CASE.

Children Half-Starved and 111-treated.

There was a case heard under the cover of Halliburton versus Peard at •the Magistrate's Court on Tuesday, and it made the tv/o defendants sit up. However they were discharged. It shouldn't happen m Christchurch, a charge of starving but so it happened, and Richard A. Peard and Miss Halliburton were supposed to be m charge of two children, both of whom were alleged to be illegitimate. Nurse Maud deposed that on the 15th inst. she visited the house occupied ~by the two accused with Constable Harvey. She found two children there, one nine months, one three months ; small, though not undersized. Saw two bottles containing a dark brown mixture. The children were fairly clean and fairly well clothed ; the house was filthy, but not so bad as some she visited. She asked about a girl nine •: months old '.and another three months. What they got m the way of nourishment was insufficient. In answer to Mr (Vincent Nurse Maude said that she was m company with Constable Harvey, and nearly every person to the house made objection. The kiddie was bad. But tlie food was m a sour condition. It was cronk anyhow.. And the bottles were unwashed. In cross-examination the lady said to Mr Vincent that the food was absolutely bad, and if you smelt it, it was very sour, and it would make you very sick if you smelt itIt was certainly no food for children.

Dr. Mickle stated that he attended tho accused for rheumatism, and there was a youngster m the house who was bad. They showed him medicine for a cough, but he altered the prescription right away. "I saw the child lying m the cradle m July,and I thought it looked very thin and wasted, and without being asked I said, ■*■ Beware how yen feed that child.' I saw it on Monday of this week, and it was bad, still suffering from a cough, and bad everyway." The child that' died was the child o* the female accused, and it was terribly badly nourished, but the older child was "all right. Dr. Mickle understood that they were a married couple until later on. However, he treated the whole family, and he didn't think the child was treated well. '''There.; are thousands m Lon.don." said tlie doctor, "who die annually on account of improper feeding." The Magistrate acquiesced. He had read ail about it m Reynold's and -Lloyd's. No doubt about that. The, doctor went on to say that the accused was mother of one of the illegitimates, although there were .three m the family, but she didn't care about her two offsprings. Dr. Shove stated that the child was perfectly healthy when he was born, but the mother 'declined to suckle the child, and he gave her . a recipe for feeding the child. This is one of the curses. of modern civilisation. Mothers won't take on the liabilities or responsibilities. Why shouldn't women suckle their children .as thoy -did m the old days ? The doctor m the box actually said that the woman forgot the prescription .he gave her for feeding the child \l What happened the poor kid m the • meantime ? Was it given a .whisky, -.and soda or what ? Why should ,a woman forget what to- give her infant anyway? Constable Harvey detailed how he visited the house occupied by the accused : there were plenty of bedclothes, but the floor =was dirty. The accused man said : "this child belonged to him, and that>the other belonged to the woman. The ! constable left, and got Nurse Maud, when she examined the children she -found that they were bad. and looked emaciated. Constable Harvey said they were very crook, and the Magistrate said he would convict =and leave her go.