RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT HAMILTON. (Yesteeday.—Before H.W. Northcroft Esq., R.M.)

Waikato Times, Volume XVI, Issue 1382, 12 May 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT HAMILTON. (Yesteeday. —Before H.W. Northcroft Esq., R.M.)

Drunkenness. Henry Peacooke was charged with this offenop, committed on the 10th. Sergt. McGroveni said the prisoner had made himself a great nuisance going about and asking 1 people to cash cheques. The Bench inflicted a fine of 5s and costs, in default 48 hours imprisonment.

Alleged Cruelty to Children. Edwin Charles Shepherd, a bettler residing at Whatawhata, was charged on a summons with having on or about the 7th March assaulted and beaten a boy named John Muir, under 14 years of age, by tying him to a cart and beating him with a siipple-jaik. Mr O'Neill defended and pleaded " not guilty." Sergeant McGovern conducted the prosecution, and briefly stated the facts of the case. He then called John Muir, & lad about 13 years of age, who deposed that he had been engaged by Shepherd as servant. He remembered, about two months ago — Shepherd told him to clear out, and witness ran away, when he sent a little girl, Elizabeth Hill, to bring him back, tied him to a cait with a rope and beat him with a supple jack. The girl and boy named Ayres held him. Defendant then put him down a dry well, removing the slabs to do so, keeping him there for about an hour. This was not the only time he was beaten. Pie ran away once before and went to Whatawhata. Shephe-d sent the other boy alter him, and brought him back. He ran away at night, and about 4 o'clock the next afternoon the boy picked him up. He ran away because he was kicked and beaten with a horsewhip. For'punishmentdefendantmade him sleep on the floor without ablanketandjfavehim no food too eat. He had nothing to eat irom the time he ran away until the morning after he was brought back. The last time defendant beat him was about ten days ago, when he struck him with a bag containing maize. When he went away to Whatawhata he had marks of the horsewhip on his body. He was beaten because he could not, owing to his sore foot, carry water fast enough. Defendant, and the other boy Sam once put his head in a jar of water used for the fowls. The little girl saw him after he was ducked, He was beaten about ten or eleven times a-week. Cross-examined : I went to defendant on the Ist of January. It was about March he tied me to the dray. The reason he beat mo was that I ran away. He tied me to the wheel of the cart, in a lying position. He gave about sixteen strokes with the supplejack across the back and legs. The othef two children held my hands, their kness being on my head and back. I ran away because he told me I could clear off any time Hiked. After beating me he put me in the well for about an hour, and about t\\ o hours after I went down with him to cut chaff. I did'nt complain before, because the people about there would only have told defendant, who would have beaten me again. I did not complain to Mr McCutchfon. I first ran away about three weeks before the second time, which was in April. When T ran away the first time, I had no food for four meals. Defendant asked me when I was brought back if I had had any food, and I said no. The second time I was not away above five minutes. When I said I had had nothing to eat, defendant told his wife not to give me anything . He struck me very hard with the bag of maize, and hurt me very much, and made me cry. I did not show the marks on me when I went to Whatawhata. The mark 1 ? are gone now. He always beat me with a whip and sometimes kicked me. He treated me more kindly this last month never using the whip. The cuts from the whip used to leave marks on me. The little girl and boy often saw me beaten, but not always. Since February defendant has not used a whip, but bas sometimes flogged me with sticks, which also left marks. From the Ist of April he has never floggad me, but has struck me with maize in a bag. It was in April X ran away the second timo. Defendant gave me a pair of boots when the police brought me over here. I brought a pair of boots with me which the defendant gave to the boy Sam, who wore them out. Re-examined : Defendant cautioned me when I went to him that if anybody asked me questions, I was to have nothing to say. I got the trousers I have on on Saturday last. Before that I wore an old pair of trousers and a body belonging to the girl. Sometimes I had only the body on with a piece of scrim round my waist. Mr McCutcheon sometimes spoke to me. He was not present when I was tied to the care. To the Bench ; Mr McCutcheou was kind to me always. I am sure that it was in April that I was tied to the cart. Elizabeth Hill, a little girl twelve years of age, sworn, said she had been engaged as a nurse girl at defendant's during the last nine months. The previous witness had been there about three months. She had seen him beaten by defendant. Witness corroborated the boy Muirs statement in regard to the flogging and to his being put in the well. She had not seen him beaten on other occasions. In cross-examination witness could not tell how long ago it was when Muir was tied to the cart. He was not beaten severely. Defendant had treated Muir well. Witness and the two boys all came from Onehunga. Muir sometimes wore a shirt ; but when picking potatoes he wore a black body. He wouldn't wear boots. Re-examined : I only saw Muir flogged once. To the Bench : Defendant always tocntetj the boy well. He had good I clothes and good food. ! This was the case for the pi?Qs.ecutiqn. Mr O'Neill asked if the defendant bad anything to answer.

The Bsnch : Yes 5 he has a greafc;"cwal to answer. -"->», Mr O'Neill submitted that the boy's evidence was unreliable. The girl said the beating was not severe, and a master had a perfect right to chastise his servant in a reasonable manner. The only part of the boy's evidence, corroborated by the girl, related to the tying to the cart. If the Court thought he had any questions to answer, he would call the defendant. The Magistrate said a master certainly had a right to chastise a servant in a leasonable manner, but defendant's treatment of the boy appeared to have been brutal, Edwin Charles Shepberd,^3wom, said he resided at Whatawhata. The boy Muir came to him on the first January. He had a coat, shirt, trousers, and pair of boots, but no hat. The boy had been at the Orphan Home in Howe-street, Industrial School, Auckland, but he did not get him from that place. While in witness's service the boy behaved very well, except that he ran away twice. He was brought back. On the second occasion he punished him by putting him in a hole, which he was digging for a tank. He never struck the boy. No one was about the place when the boy ran away. He never tied the boy to a cart. Cross-examined by Sergeant McGovern : 1 will swear that I never tied the boy to a cart. The boy's father wrote to me, saying he had heard I was keeping the boy out of charity, and if such was the case, to send him home. He did not send me any money to pay his fare. Mr Carter made an application to me for the boy. but the boy did not go. I refused. I did chastise the boy a little when he fhst came, because he was stubborn. Re-examined : I have not beaten him more than half-a-dozen times. His father was in gaol and his mother gave us authority to be strict with him. To the Bench : I did not tell the father by letter that the boy did not want to go home. The Magistrate said he had just received a telegram from tiie boys father to the contrary effect. In answer to the Bench, witness swore positively that he did not tie the boy Muir to the cart and ilog him while the other children held him down. Join McCutcheon, a settler residing at W hatawhata, .said he was working for defendant about a month ago, but could not give exact dates. He never saw or heard if Sheppard tying a boy to a cartwheel. When at Shepherd's witness attended strictly to his own business and did not watch defendant. Muir never made ai y complaint to him. Cross- examined : I was working at a great distance from Shepherd's house and defendant might have beaten a dozen boys without my knowledge. This was the case for the defence.

Another Case. The came defendant was then charged with ussualting, kicking and beating the girl Elizabeth Hill, on Sunday, the Bfch inst. Mr O'Neill appeared for the defence and pleaded not guilty. The plaintiff said she was going out with the babies and defendant told her not to go outside she fjate. She went out, and he gotangryknockedhcrdown, kicked her and made her nose bleed — afterwards defendant told her not to go in with her nose bleediusr. She cleaned t.he blood away. Defendant often beat her with a supple-jack. Ct oss-examined : Muir was with me when I went out with the babies, hplpiuy me to pull them in the cart. Defei « dant did not kick me very haid. He had only light boots on. I wiped the blood away with my handkerchief. "When Muir left he told me that a gentleman was coming for me in a month. I havo had no conversation about this caoe with Muir. John Muir, sworn, generally corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. He said the assault took place at about 3 or 4 o'clock in the afternoon. This was lhe case for the prosecution. For the defence Mr O'Neill called Alice Richards, the wife of a settler residing at Whatawhata, who said she had been engaged musing Mrs Shepherd. She was there last Sunday. Defendant was at home all the afternoon — in the house until he went to milk. If he was out during the afternoon he did not go far away. She was not sure whether the babies weie out m the afternoon or not. Cioss-examined : The dpfendant might have been outside about 3 o'clock unknown to me, because I was away washing myself. To the Bench : Defendant might have struck the little girl without my knowledge, but I don't think it probable. The girl told me nothing about it, and I think she would have done so had she been assaulted. Edwin Charles Shepherd, the defendant, sworn, examined under the " Further Evidence Act," said he did not assault the little girl in the manner described by her. Had never beaten her with a' supplejack. He altogether denied the assault. In cross-examination defendant still denied the as&ault. To the Bench : I was not out of the house from dinner timu until I went out to sco a lady friend away, about dusk. I had dinner at about half-past 12 or 1 o'clock. There was a further charge against the same defendant for neglecting to provide necessary clothing and lodging for a servant boy in his employment under the age of 14 years. There was no e\idence forthcoming, and defendant was discharged, on the understanding that the police could bring the charge at any future time. In giving judgment in the other eases, His Worship said : On the first charge I take the defendant's evidence against that of the little girl ; the boya evidence contains several discrepancies, and I therefore dismiss that charge. On the second charge, that of assaulting the little girl, I iind the defendant guilty. The evidence of the two children I think very {trustworthy, any little difference only shows that it is more reliable. The evidence of Mrs Richards shows that the assault may have been committed without her knowledge during the time she was out of the room. If the defendant wanted to prove that he did not leave the room, he should secure the evidence of the lady visitor, Mrs Davis, who was in the house on Sunday. Mr O'Neill: The .'defendant has not had time to do so. He presumed that the evidence of the nurse would have been sufficient. His Worship: He had time to bring Mxf Richards. However. I think the evidence of the two children goes to prove the offence. From the nature of their evidence I do not think they could have in any been arranged what they were going to say. I fine the defendants, and costs' £2 9s, in default three months imprisonment with hard labor in Mount Eden Gteol. I must tell you that you have got off very light indeed. A man who like you would take little children away from their parents and treat them as you appear to have done, is not deserving the name of a man. What would you have thought if two o"r three men stronger than yourself had got you down and hammered you ? Many a man has gone to gaol for treating a doj? as you appear to have treated i fchesa children^ Sergeajit MoQovern, I hope you will make it youj? business to procure the dvideuoe of the boy Sam

I AvraB, and if it corroborates that of the other two children, I will commit the do- | fendant for perjury. Sergeant MoGovem : I will communicate with the Onehunga police at once. Sergt. McGovern asked what was to become of the two children. His Worship said the telegram he had received from the boy's father stated that he had sent money to Shepherd to pay his passage down and- that Shepherd had replied to the, effect that the boy did not want to go away, thereby deceiving him (the "father). " Sergt. McGovern said Mr Carter of -Tlihikaramea, was in Court, and wished to take Muir into his employment, but the lad was unwilling t6* remain in the district. His Worship : In that case then the parents must be communicated with. Children like these ought to be protected, , because it appears to. me that they are treated like animals ; worse indeed, because animals are looked after on account of the probable profit which can be made out of them in the market. The Court then adjourned. '