TARANAKI JOCKEY CLUB.

Taranaki Daily News, 21 December 1933, Page 7

TARANAKI JOCKEY CLUB.

INCREASE IN STAKES PROPOSED. An increase in stakes was involved in the programme prepared for the New Plymouth February races by the committee of the Taranaki Jockey Club at a combined meeting of the committee and stewards on Tuesday. There were present Messrs. L. A. Nolan (chairman), E. P. Webster, J. McLeod, J. Power, W. C. Weston, G. Sykes, J. Scanlan, R. Mark, G. E. Jago, E. Efiiot, E. B. Davies, W. T. Hookham, F. Moore, W. N. Stephenson, S. E.- Nielson, W. D. Graham and G. Fraser. A vote of sympathy was passed with Mrs. John Bennett and family in the sudden death of Mr. Bennett, who for many years had been an official of the club in the capacity of its honorary timekeeper. Sympathy with Mr. A. R. Standish in his illness was expressed and hopes were expressed for his speedy recovery. The stewards met to appoint the committees for their official capacities at the forthcoming race meeting. The committee then met and considered a tentative programme for the February meeting. A substantial increase in the prize-money would be distributed over all races. It was suggested that a gold cup be included in the prize for the Taranaki Cup. These tentative arrangements will be confirmed at a special meeting on December 26.

ALLEGED ILL=TREATMENT

RAHOTU WOMAN’S STEPCHILD

BRUISE MARKS ON THE BODY.

TEACHER AND DOCTOR’S STORY.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION-

The charge of ill-treating her stepdaughter, Wiki (Topsy) Conroy, aged seven years, so as to cause her unnecessary suffering was defended by Lucy Conroy, a young married Maori woman of Rahotu, at the Magistrate’s Court at New Plymouth yesterday. Last week the magistrate, Mr. W. H. Woodward, advised Mrs. Conroy, who had then pleaded guilty, to seek legal advice. She did so and on her behalf Mr. P. Grey was permitted to withdraw the original plea and substitute one of not guilty. The hearing proceeded yesterday, when the prosecution witnesses were heard, and was then adjourned until to-day, when evidence for the defence will be called, Sergeant S. G. Clist prosecuted.

The first witness was John T. Linehan, schoolmaster at Rahotu, who said that from the first time the child attended school in February, 1933, he noticed it to be pale and exceptionally quiet. It did not run about and play with other children and hardly spoke to them. For a small child it was quite unusual. It was very pale-faced and would hardly speak at all. When other children spoke to the child they found it difficult to get any response.

On several occasions he found the child in the school grounds long after the school had closed and did his best to persuade her to go home. The only reason he could get out of the child for not doing so was that “Mummy would beat her.” Before this he had treated one of the child’s hands. It was exceedingly swollen and bruised right across the back and through to the palm. The child said the injury was caused by a fire-bar falling on her hand when she was doing something to the fire. REFUSED TO GO HOME. On the first occasion the child had not gone home he had tried to bribe her to do so with an apple and had to carry her to the gate as she stubbornly refused to go. She said .she wanted to stay with witness, Her father came for her on this occasion. The same thing occurred a month later. Mrs. Conroy came for the child on this occasion algo and witness had to carry the child to the gate. On the previous occasion the child had struggled but this time stopped immediately Mrs. Conroy spoke to her. In witness’ opinion this indicated the child was more afraid of its stepmother than its father. Shortly afterwards the child was withdrawn from the school. It was said she had a sore eye. During the tune the child was at school he had noticed during the morning school inspection that the arms showed signs of bruising, the result, he considered, of having been beaten. The child was sent back to school in September, but was absent again because of an abscess on the leg for a long time. Some children said the child had been kept home to work. On November 14 he noticed fresh bruising on the arms. The child said she had been beaten. He also saw marks on her back and a number of narrow dark marks as though made by a strap. Next day witness noticed her skin broken. The strap produced by Sergeant Clist seemed hardly , heavy enough to inflict these marks, but it was quite possible to do it with the buckle end. Proceeding, Linehan said there were also three-distinct finger marks of bruising on the child’s right cheek. The child refused to go home on November 15 and said she had been thrashed again the morning after Dr. Champtaloup had examined her. . MARKED DIFFERENCE NOW. To Mr." Grey, witness said there was now a marked difference in the childIt was fuller in. the face, ran about and played and was brighter than at the beginning of 1933. He had drawn the inference from the cheek marks that the child, had bean seized by the hand in the way .the marks indicated. They were fresh and black.. If the child had collided with.any object it would have to be something with three peculiarly distinct protuberances. Mr. Grey: It has been suggested to the court that Mrs,. Conroy is not the best type of Native?—l do not think there is any foundation for that. She is a respectable woman .and from what I know her own children are fond of her and are well cared for. Sergeant Clist: The marks on the back were old and new, as though inflicted over a : period?—Yes. , The magistrate complimented Linehan on the fajr way he had given his evidence.

Dr. Mary Champtaloup, medical officer of health for Taranaki, said the schoolmaster had said to her during a visit to the school that there was one child in particular he would like witness’ opinion on. Witness looked around the classroom and saw Topsy Conroy. She judged this was the child who required investigation. The child’s expression was abnormal and sad. Witness examined the child and found its nutrition to be subnormal—not to such an extent as to say it was suffering from malnutrition—but below normal standard. There were bruise marks on toe right cheek which witness judged to be finger marks. These could have been caused by a blow by the right hand from the rear or, as witness understood the child itself had stated, by the cheek being grasped between the fingers. On the body were numerous marks and scars. CHILD’S EXPLANATION. Asked how she came by the marks the child game a very intelligent explanation and did not attribute them all to having been beaten. One mark was due to a burn and there was a scar from an abscess. There were certain marks of which the child said, “My mother did it.” There was a number of recent bruises, and on the back red marks which the child said were caused by a strap. One section of the child’s arms were extensively bruised, and across the buttocks a number of less recent marks were visible. These the child said had also been inflicted by her mother. The buttocks marks did not appear to have been caused by a strap but could have been produced by a whip, supplejack, or something of that nature. The type of scar found was the result of skin being broken or weals being raised. This was consistent with thrashing with some violence. It could not be caused by a mere smacking, but was sufficient to produce damage to the skin remaining for several months. The child’s skin was unbroken that day.

Sergeant Clist pointed out that the schoolmaster had found the skin broken the following day. Proceeding, Dr. Champtaloup said the face marks were almost unmistakably those of fingers. She did not think the marks across the child’s buttocks consistent with an outbreak of scabs. Mrs. Christine Twaddle, Child Welfare Department, said she found a good few discolourations and sharp marks as though a buckle had been used on the child's body. Regarding the cheek marks

toe child had said, “My Mummy pinched me . ... she caught me this way (by too cheek) and pulled me around.” The marks were consistent with similar marks she had seen resulting from thrashing with the buckle.end of a strap.

Dolly Conroy, an aunt of the child and in whose charge she had been for some time since October, 1930, said she found the girl well-behaved and obedient. She had no cause to thrash her and the child did all required of her. The child had told witness that her stepmother beat her and that she was frightened of her. * To Mr. Grey witness admitted there was some ill-feeling between her and the child’s stepmother. Mr. Grey: Constable Ruston seems to have got the idea that defendant is a bad woman. I would like to know where he got that from—l do not remember telling him anything. Sergeant Clist: You told the constable you found defendant untruthful?—Yes. Constable A. J. Ruston, Rahotu, detailed finding a number of marks on the child’s body with broken skin. There were also old marks and distinguishable finger marks on her face. The child said her mother had thrashed her. In a statement Mrs. .Conroy had admitted thrashing toe child on two occasions with a strap and with a stick, or her hands. The reason for this was that the child “got on her nerves,” and for any reason she would thrash it.

To Sergeant Clist: The statement was read to Mrs. Conroy in the presence of her husband and she signed it. Mr. Grey said that defendant and her husband, a relief worker, were in poor circumstances. In the past three years the child had been 17 months away from Mrs. Conroy. The child had had terrible sores and these left white scars. Mrs. Conroy did not know where the child got the other marks from.

Sergeant Clist. She admits snaking the marks complained of in her own statement!

Mr. Grey said Mrs. Conroy regarded the child as very difficult to manage. If told to do anything the child would roll on the floor and squeal. The charge of unmercifully beating the child was refuted. The husband had seen his wife spank the child and there was nothing disproportionate about it. There had been some suggestion that the child was entitled to some rent monies. Mrs. Conroy wished to make it clear that she had not received a penny of this, but on the other hand had spent her own money on the child. If Mrs. Conroy had had sole control of the child the matter would not have happened. Recently by one disobedient act the child had set the house afire. She had also tipped the baby out of a pram and burnt herself in the fire. Half the damage to the child was caused because she knocked herself about when she lay down and squealed. Mrs. Conroy denied as far as she knew striking the child with a buckle.

The case was adjourned until to-day.