Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
Taunton Courier. Bristol and Exeter Journal, and Western Advertiser Wednesday 09 Apr 1919
Page 3 Column 4 & 5
TAUNTON BOROUGH POLICE-COURT
WEDNESDAY. - Before the Mayor (Alderman H. J. Van TRUMP), and Messrs. J. P. SIBLEY, W. J. VILLAR, John WHITE, and J. C. LANE?.
DOG LICENSE CASES.
Janet HOLMAN, married woman, of 17, The Crescent, Taunton, was summoned for keeping a dog without a license on the 24th ult., and was represented by her husband. - P.C. WOOLCOT gave the facts, and stated that defendant told him she had had a long illness, and forgot to take out the license.- Fined 5s.
Herbert CHALK, clerk, of 23, Eastleigh-road, Taunton, appeared on an adjourned summons for a like offence on the 11th March. - He pleaded not guilty. - P.C. WOOLCOT stated that he called at defendant's premises and saw a small terrier dog there, and asked him if he had a license for it. He replied “No; I have been ill for several weeks, and my son intended to take out the license, but has not done so. I will renew the license at once.” The license was taken out three or four days afterwards. - Defendant said the dog did not belong to him, but to his son, who was in the Army, and had been a prisoner of war in Germany until he was repatriated. During the time his son was home on furlough the question came up about the license. His son had he would take it out, and he (defendant) was not aware but what his son had done so. Defendant further explained that since the beginning of February he had been seriously ill. - The Bench dismissed the case on payment of the costs.
AN ATTENDANCE ORDER.
Blanche KERSLAKE, widow, of Somerset Place, Taunton, was summoned for not sending her child to school. - Mr. S. WIDDICOMBE, school attendance officer, proved the case, and the Bench made the usual attendance order.
ALLEGED NEGLECT OF CHILDREN.
A CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE.
THE POORS' DISLIKE OF THE WORKHOUSE.
Emily GRIGG, widow, of Paradise Square, Duke-street, Taunton, was charged with unlawfully and wilfully neglecting her three children under the age of 14 years, viz., Sidney (aged 11), Gordon and Phyllis (twins, aged 6), in a manner likely to cause them unnecessary suffering and injury to health, on 22nd March last, and divers <sic> previous dates. - Mr. T. BROOMHEAD prosecuted as local honorary secretary of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and Mr. H. G. SPILLER appeared for the defendant, who elected to be dealt with summarily, and pleaded not guilty.
In opening the case, Mr. BROOMHEAD explained that the defendant was the mother of four children, the eldest of whom was a daughter aged 21, and they lived together. The child Gordon especially had been seriously neglected, and was in an extremely bad state when Inspector PEARCE, on behalf of the Society, visited the case on many occasions, commencing as long ago as the 19th January, 1917, the officer frequently advising the defendant to look after the children. Defendant was now working as a charwoman, but formerly was employed at the factory. Some time ago the Guardians allowed defendant 4s 3d a week, and a quart of milk a day, but that was stopped on the 12th March this year, because of the way she was neglecting her children. On the 14th December last Inspector PEARCE was present when the child Phyllis was excluded from the Central Schools because of verminous head. He saw the mother and advised her, but she would do nothing, and refused either to have the child's hair cut or to allow her to go the the school clinic. In the last week in February, 1919, the same child was again excluded from school for the same reason, and on the 1st March Inspector PEARCE again visited defendant, who positively refused to treat the child properly, and defied him to do his worst. On the 12th and 20th March the Inspector paid visits to the home, and found the children in the house alone. Gordon was lying on the floor looking extremely ill, and the bodies of Sidney and Phyllis covered with sores and vermin. It was ascertained that each of the children was insured for either £5 7s 8d or £5 17s 8d? each – a fact which he (Mr. BROOMHEAD) mentioned to the Bench, leaving them to form their opinion as to whether that had anything to do with the neglected state of the children. Defendant was again advised and begged by the Inspector to send the children to the Workhouse Infirmary, but she said she would rather see them die than go there. Dr. POOLE had examined the three children, and also advised defendant to send them to the Workhouse Infirmary, but she replied that they should never go there. The Inspector visited the house again, and finding the children in a similar state he obtained a certificate from Dr. POOLE and went to the defendant, explaining to her that the boy would probably die unless he was properly attended to. She admitted that the children did not have proper food, but again declared that they should not go to the Workhouse Infirmary as long as she lived. She got in a violent temper, and was very offensive to the Inspector. He ordered a quart of milk a day for the children, and that was supplied up to the time of their removal. On the 25th March he visited again, and got an order for the removal of the children to the Workhouse Infirmary. He first tried to induce the mother to let him take the children, but she refused, and got very angry and threatening, so that it was necessary for him to get assistance from the police, who held the mother while he removed the children. The boy was then in such a terrible state that it made the officer sick.
Inspector PEARCE then gave evidence bearing out Mr. BROOMHEAD's statement, and said in December, when the child Phyllis was excluded from school, her head was a mass of scabs and verminous. When he advised that the child's hair should be cut off, and that she should be sent to the clinic, defendant refused, and simply got some vaseline and ointment. The head got better, and the child returned to school and continued going until the last week in February, when she was excluded again. On the 1st March he called again, and the door was open and he went in. In the living room was a bed on which Gordon was lying. A woman named DARE came in, and said she was looking after the children whilst the mother was at work. Gordon was looking ill and very thin, and was under the care of Dr. POOLE. On the 20th March the children was covered with a rash, which appeared to be itch, and he considered it dangerous for them to mix with other children. He went into the bedroom where the daughter Ethel was in bed, and in a similar state. The room was fairly clean, but foul smelling through want of ventilation. The only food in the house was bread and margarine. He ascertained that defendant was getting parish pay of 4s 3d, and a quart of milk a day, while the woman was earning 7s a week herself. She told him that the Guardians had stopped her allowance, and she did not know why, but they wanted the children to go to the infirmary, and she would rather let them die than go to such a place as that. From his long experience in these matters he was certainly of opinion that the condition in which he found the children would certainly be injurious to their health.
Mr. SPILLER (in cross-examination): Would it not be correct to describe this woman as an affectionate mother? - Witness: I should say not. She is an ill-tempered, bad-mannered woman.
Isn't there a general reluctance on the part of the poor people to go into the infirmary of this town? - There is with some people in regard to the Workhouse, but I have never had much trouble in my life before in removing people there as I had in this case.
As to the insurance, isn't it very common for this class of people to insure the lives of their children? - No.
There is nothing suspicious about it. Do you suggest that Mrs. GRIGG would be glad if these children died so that she could get the money? - I won't go as far as that, but I do suggest it makes some people careless.
Dr. POOLE, medical officer of health to the Taunton District Council, and Poor-Law medical officer for the St. James's district, was the next witness, and he stated that he had attended the case since December 17th, 1918. All three children were anaemic, and in very poor condition. Gordon's state being serious and the chances of his living remote. He had advised the mother to remove them to the Infirmary, and told her that otherwise he thought Gordon would die. Since the children had been removed to the Workhouse they had become much better.
By Mr. SPILLER: The children were moderately clean, and not particularly dirty as far as their skin was concerned. He could appreciate the fact that the woman did not want to part with her children, but it was her duty to see that they got the best treatment they could.
Miss Marian RABBLE, visiting inspector under the Infant Life Protection Act, said she had known defendant for three years, and had several times advised her to send the children to the infirmary, but she refused to let them go.
Miss J. BELLCHAMBERS, school nurse and attendance officer for Taunton, gave evidence as to excluding the children from school, and added that when she saw defendant the latter was most abusive, and said she would drown herself and the children.
P.S. CARTER said he assisted in the removal of the children to the Workhouse, and he had to use a little force to restrain defendant.
Mr. SPILLER, in opening the defence, contended that the only neglect alleged in this case was simply that the mother would not allow the children to go to the Workhouse Infirmary.
Mr. BROOMHEAD (intervening) pointed out that the point which the Bench had to consider was whether the general surroundings of the children were such as to amount to neglect.
Mr. SPILLER submitted that this was a case where the mother desired to keep her children with her, however poor she was, while on the other hand the Guardians wished her to part with them. Among the poor it was regarded as a disgrace to go into the Workhouse, and that accounted for Mrs. GRIGG refusing to let her children go there.
Mr. MINETT, one of the workers under the Taunton Town Mission, said he had visited Mrs. GRIGG's house for the past twenty years, and was visiting it in December last, and up to about a fortnight ago. He found the home in fairly clean condition downstairs. He knew there was a reluctance on the part of some people to go into the Workhouse. He had strong convictions from evidence he had seen that defendant was an affectionate woman, and as far as she had been able had cared for her children.
Mr. BROOMHEAD: From your experience, is it not a fact that at the Workhouse Infirmary the nursing is good, and the medical attention excellent? - As far as I am able to judge it is splendid, and could not be better.
Having heard the evidence this morning, don't you think she should have sent the children into the infirmary? - I certainly do, sir.
“Captain” DAVIS, of the Salvation Army, said he had known defendant since last June, and he thought she kept the house as clean as she possibly could, that she was fond of her children, and did her best for them.
Cross-examined: He knew that defendant had been advised to send the children to the Workhouse Infirmary, but she told him she would prefer their going to a Salvation Army Home, because she thought if they went into the Worwhouse <sic> she would not see them again. Witness added that the children had been to the Salvation Army Sunday School, and taken first prizes, and they always appeared clean and tidy.
Mrs Jane DARE, a neighbour, stated that defendant was a trustworthy and upright woman towards her children. When not at work she was always at home, and when she was ill witness went in and out of the house, and as a neighbour did what she could for her.
Defendant was sworn, and said she first got the doctor to come to see Gordon in December, and she understood that the child was suffering from consumption, like his father. She had always done what the doctor had told her to do, except to send the children to the Workhouse Infirmary.
The magistrates having consulted, the Mayor said they had decided to adjourn the case for three months to see how the children were by that time. The Bench wished the general public to understand that parents were responsible for the care and attention of their children, but they also thought this was a case where the woman should have received more assistance than she did from the relieving-officer. (Applause, which was at once suppressed.) They also thought defendant should have taken the advise of the Medical Officer and the nurses.
THURSDAY. - Before Alderman F. W. PENNY and Mr. Eland CLATWORTHY.
DANGEROUS MAN SENT TO PRISON.
James DONOVAN, who appeared in the dock wearing the ribbons of numerous medals and decorations, pleaded guilty to having on the 2nd lodged in a yard in Albermarle-road, without having visible means of subsistence.
P.C. PARTRIDGE stated that at 11 p.m. he was called to Mr. GOVIER's yard in Albermarle-road, where he found defendant asleep under a very large straw rick. He was covered with straw, and had in his possession two boxes of matches and a pipe. He would not stop in the Workhouse, but slept at various farms, and was quite a dangerous man.
P.S. GILES stated that defendant was convicted for a similar offence on February 22nd, and sent to prison for a month. They had a large number of complaints respecting defendant, who slept under ricks, smoked, and lighted candles. Every effort had been made to induce him to abandon his habits, but without avail.
The Bench said they took a very serious view of the case, and thought defendant's conduct was very dangerous indeed. He would be sent to prison for three months.