ALLEGED NEGLECT

Southland Times, Issue 20618, 17 October 1928, Page 6

ALLEGED NEGLECT

CASE AT GORE “DISGRACEFUL STATE OF AFFAIRS” MAGISTRATE’S STRONG COMMENT (From Our Correspondent.) An unusual case was heard at the Gore Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning when Daniel Breen and Mary Breen appeared before Mr H. J. Dixon, S.M., charged under separate informations with the wilful neglect of their son Michael Breen so as to cause him unnecessary suffering and injury, and also with wilfully neglecting their infant daughter, June Breen. Mr R. B. Bannerman appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. Sergeant Packer slated that the accused had been living in Gore for some few years past and the evidence would show that their neglect towards their children was not a casual affair, but occurred from time to time. Recently when the children were taken away from them the house was found to be in a deplorable state and both children showed very evident signs of neglect. On October 4, *the Magistrate had thought fit to speak to them severely for their conduct towards their children. Thomas Middlemiss, carting contractor, stated that about three weeks ago he had occasion to call at Breen’s house. On arrival there he found the accused’s son locked outside. Apparently the boy had not had anything to eat that day, so witness took him to his own home, where he was given some tea. After the boy had had his tea witness took him back to Breen’s, but on knocking at the door did not receive any response. He therefore took the lad home with him again and communicated with Sergeant Packer. Constable Symons then came along and went with witness to Breen’s house, but could not gain admission. The constable returned to the police station and subsequently came back accompanied by Constable Sughrue and Mr Martin, who had issued a search warrant. Witness saw both the children that night. The boy had been put to bed in his house and the police brought the other child, wrapped in a blanket, from Breen’s house. Breen’s children had been bathed at his home on three or four occasions. He had never seen them bathed and had only seen their clothes once. They were then in a filthy condition. He had been threatened by Breen, who stated that if witness came into Court to give evidence against him, he would give him a muddy face. House in Filthy Condition.

Andrew Martin stated that on September 22 at a little after 9 p.m. Constable Symons called at his home and said that a complaint had been made against the Breen family. Witness accordingly signed a search warrant and accompanied by Constables Symons and Sughrue went to Breen’s house. Constable Sughrue knocked at the doors, but received no response. He then called out to Breen, who eventually came and opened the front door. They then went inside. The constable asked Breen what he was doing, and Breen replied, “Nothing.” The constable then inquired where Mrs Breen was, and they were taken into a room where they saw Mrs Breen lying on a bed on the floor. Constable Sughrue spoke to her, but she seemed dazed and did not reply for a minute or two. The constable-asked to seethe baby, and Mrs Breen pulled back the blanket. The baby was lying on Mrs Breen’s arm and a bottle of methylated spirits was lying between them. The constable said that they would have to take the child away. The child did not seem to want to go, but did so when they sent for the boy. The house was in a filthy condition. There was about a quarter of a loaf of bread in .the kitchen and some tea in a cupboard, but as far as he could see there was no other food in the house.

To Mr Bannerman: The boy seemed to be well enough dressed. Mary Garrick said that she resided close to the Breens. About 12 months ago the boy Breen called at her house and asked her if she would mind looking after the baby as her mother was not well. She went across to Breen’s and Mr Breen told her that they had been having a little drink. He also told her that that was what was wrong with his wife. She took the children t-o her home. They were both very dirty and the boy was very hungry’. To Mr Bannerman: A child would not take long to get dirty if left by itself. These children, however, had been left to themselves from Sunday to Wednesday. She knew that because the boy told her that a keg arrived on Saturday and it was Wednesday when he called at her house. Alice Sy?no»s, wife of Constable Symons, stated that the had been taken to her house from the Breen’s. They were both dirty and the little girl was in a neglected condition. The boy was not so bad, but his clothing was filthy. The girl seemed to be ravenously hungry’. Witness kept them from Saturday night until Tuesday morning. No inquiry was made by the parents as to how the children were getting on. To Mr Bannerman: She did not know that the Breens were preparing to shift and that all the furniture was out of the house. Constable’s Visit. Constable Sughrue said that on September 22 he accompanied Constable Symons and Mr Martin to the accused’s house. On arriving there they found the place in darkness and had to send for a light. After a lot of knocking and calling Breen came to the front door. He was dirty and unkempt and seemed half-stupid as if he were recovering from a drinking bout. The house was also very dirty. Mrs Breen, who was lying on a sort of bed on the floor, was almost speechless drunk and held a bottle, labelled port wine, in her hand. There were two bottles lying alongside of the bed and these smelt strongly of methylated spirits. The baby looked pale and wan and had very little clothing on. The only food he could find in the house was some stale bread and a little tea. Witness subsequently interviewed Breen who admitted that he had been drinking methylated spirits for some months past and had been more or less on the spree during that period. He also admitted having done no work and said that with another man he had disposed of 23 bottles of methylated spirits. On a previous occasion he had visited Breen’s house with Sergeant Packer. The parents were then drunk and there was no food in the house. The children were taken away from them. To Mr Bannerman: He was not aware that the defendant kept a cow, but knew that they had one or two fowls. Mrs Breen seemed dazed when He did not think that the sight of a policeman would be sufficient to cause her any concern. She told him that the baby had had an egg for tea. He could not say whether or no this was correct, but seemed to recollect having seen an egg-shell in the kitchen. She also told him that there was some meat in a safe outside, but he knew that they did not have a safe. It was dark outside and he could not see very well, but he did not notice any furniture there. Sergeant Packer said that he called at Breen’s house about two years ago. Mrs Breen was in bed with a partly-filled keg lying beside her. There was also a partlyfilled bottle containing whisky beside the bed. The children’s clothing on that occasion was very dirty. The girl was taken away from them, but the boy was left with the parents in order to give them another chance to keep straight. They got along all right for about six months, and then started to break out again. Both were addicted to drink. During the past 12 months the boy had on several occasions been given a meal at his house. Constable Symons corroborated the evidence of Constable Sughrue in regard to the visit to Breen’s house on September 22. The Defence. Mr Bannerman for the defence stated that he did not think that there was any

case to answer, as it was necessary for the prosecution to show that the neglect had been deliberate and with intent to cause the children unnecessary suffering and injury. So far as the boy was concerned the only thing which the police had attempted to show was that he had not been fed and that he had not been allowed back into the house. The evidence in regard to this was very weak, as it was known that the normal healthy child was always hungry and would ask for food. The explanation given by the accused was that they were under the impression that the boy was away playing at a neighbour’s place. They were just preparing to shift and had everything out of the house in readiness for the carter, when they were advised that the landlord of the house they were going to move into, would not lease it to them. This accounted for the lack of furniture in the house when the police called, and also for the state of the children’s clothing as they could not be looked,after to the . same extent as under ordinary circumstances. With regard to the baby the only allegation was that the child was dirty. The mother stated that it had been fed at 6 o’clock and in support of her statement Constable Sughrue stated that he saw an egg-shell in the kitchen. The child would probably have been fed again at 10 p.m. Whatever might have been said about Mrs Breen drinking spirits, she was a woman in a poor state of health and was unable to stand up to very much. It had not been shown that the children had been wilfully neglected or that the neglect was such to cause them unnecessary suffering or bodily harm. The police had failed to call the evidence of a doctor who was the only one in a position to give any evidence on this point. Informations Dismissed. The Magistrate, in dismissing the informations, said that there was no doubt but that the accused were unfit to have the custody of their children, and they had been taken away from them. That, however, was a different case to the present one in which the accused were charged with a criminal offence. The case disclosed a disgraceful state of affairs, but there had not been sufficient evidence to prove that the neglect had been such as to cause unnecessary suffering, or that the neglect was wilful.