|
[children, neglect of – women defendants in crime]
R
v. Kane
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Dowling C.J., 2 May 1840
Source: Sydney
Herald, 6 May 1840 [1]
Patrick and Bridget Kane
were indicted for a misdemeanor in having on the 25th day of December
last, while in liquor, neglected their son James Kane, an infant
of eight months old, and incapable to take care of himself, in consequence
of which neglect the clothes of the said James Kane caught fire
and he was so seriously burned that he died in the course of the
day.
The prisoners pleaded not
guilty; and His Honor requested Mr. Callighan to undertake their
defence.
In opening the case the
Attorney-General stated that the present was another instance of
the awful evils which intemperance is inflicting on this otherwise
blessed country. Were the importers of these spirits to attend
the Supreme Court and hear the history of every gallon they had
imported, as revealed in the crimes that came before the Court in
charges of murder, of parracide, matricide, and all the crimes that
can be conceived, not to mention the robberies it led to, and the
number of lashes which it inflicted on the backs of the criminals
already under sentence, he was sure they would to a man renounce
the trade.
Benjamin Sparke, assigned
to Jenry Shadforth, J.P., being sworn, deposed, that the prisoners
lived on Mr. Shadforth’s property; they had a boy about eight or
nine months old; it was a fine healthy child names James. He was
passing their residence about ten a.m. on Christmas and heard the
child crying, which was quite unusual. He heard the cries one hundred
yards off; went up and saw the child lying on the sill of the door;
all its clothes were burnt off but a sleeve of a frock which was
on fire. He tore it off and burnt his fingers in so doing; the
child was in great agonies. He took it up and went into the first
room, and saw no one it; he went into the next room and saw the
prisoners lying on the ground; there was no bed in the second room,
but there was in the first. They were asleep; he had considerable
trouble to awaken Kane, and when he was awakened witness told him
his child was burned Kane woke his wife, and went immediately up
to Mr. Shadforth’s. There was a log on the fire burning, and the
fire appeared to have been raked; there was no fender. Both of
them appeared a little in liquor; after she rose she put a cloth
round the child, and appeared very sorry; he and the woman immediately
went towards Mr. Shadforth’s with the child to see the doctor, and
saw Mr. Shadforth and the doctor coming. The doctor told the woman
to take the child home – it was then alive. The next time he saw
the child it was dead. In cross-examination witness stated that
the child could crawl about; the fire was very dim; never heard
the child cry mamma, mamma. The mother appeared very sorry indeed,
and was anxious to get the child conveyed to the doctor, and when
she saw the state of the child the sorrow and fright made her sober.
The child was outside on the sill lying on its back. The cries
of the child were loud enough to have awakened any person that was
not drunk.
Mr. Shadforth, - I employed
the husband as a labourer; he had served his time in the Colony;
they brought but one child; from eight to ten years old, with them;
Kane told me he had another son at school at Penrith. On Christmas
day, about ten a.m. the prisoner Kane came crying to my house, and
told me his child was burned to death; he was not sober; I thought
it was grief; after gong to the hut the doctor desired a fire to
be made to get some warm water, when Kane refused, saying it was
of no use, as his child was dead. The doctor and me got wood and
made a fire; the prisoner was very noisy all the time the doctor
was examining the child, and in my opinion the riotous conduct of
the prisoner was caused partly by grief, and partly by drink. The
wife was sober, and held the child while the doctor was dressing
it. She had been drinking apparently by her dress; he husband challenged
her with being drunk, and she did not deny it; I challenged the
husband with [being] drunk, and he replied that he was not, all
he had drunk that morning was a glass of wine, which McEwen, a neighbour,
had given him. On searching the hut a bottle with about half a
glass of rum was found, and a two-gallon keg, empty, which smelled
of rum. On the next day Kane acknowledged that on the day before
Christmas he had got a gallon of rum from Penrith, and that he and
his neighbours drank it; they always appeared very fond of the child,
and both were very sorry at its being so severely burned; my men
were getting ready at the time of the accident to hear prayers on
Christmas day; the Catholics do not attend these prayers, but I
take care that they are clean, and those who wish to go are sent
to prayers. Cross-examined by the prisoner – I have never seen
the husband in liquor, but believe he has been so during the four
months he has been in my employ; the wife was drunk one Sunday,
she got intoxicated by some relations visiting them; they are not
habitual drunkards.
The medical attendant proved
that the child was so burned across the chest and bowels, that there
was no chance of its surviving; it was dead about two hours after
witness first saw it; the husband was in a state of intoxication,
the woman was perfectly sober and collected. Witness would know
if a person was in liquor. Spirituous liquors predispose a person
to heavy sleep; rum would strengthen a woman while nursing if given
in the quantity of a wine glass full per day, diluted with water;
porter would be better; all stimulants increase the quantity of
lacteal fluid, but do not improve the quality. If the mother was
in health he would not give her any rum, and if ill, he would prefer
other stimulants to rum. The husband was very loud and abusive,
saying he had no luck on it. The female is hard of hearing, and
the witness had prescribed for her repeatedly, but she might have
heard her child cry, even if asleep, provided the sound ear was
not next the pillow.
The prisoners stated in
their defence that it was Christmas time, and the husband had gone
for a drop of rum on the previous evening, which they partook of
too freely, and the husband being weakly lay down in the back room,
as the heat was very intense owing to their bed standing close to
the fire after she had cooked some victuals she went and lay down
in the cool room with her child in her arms, gave it the breast,
and spoke for a little while to her husband, after which she fell
asleep, and did not know how her child left her, but no doubt it
had crawled along the floor till it came to the fire, when its clothes
had caught the flames.
Mr. Callighan submitted
to His Honor whether the precedent on which the indictment had been
framed could apply to the case, seeing in that one the parties were
indicted for deserting, refusing to clothe and nourish their child,
whereas in the present case it appeared in evidence that the parents
were very fond of their infant, and had done all the things alleged
in the precedent, and the indictment ought to have charged them
with an accident occurring through their own neglect, rather than
with neglecting the child.
His Honor over-ruled the
objection, and in summing up stated, that any neglect or breach
of a moral duty which is an outrage on society, was an indictable
offence; as it was, should a conviction take place, the objection
raised by Mr. Callighan would be brought before the Court. The
Jury found a verdict of Not Guilty.
His Honor advised the prisoners
to fall down on their knees and thank God for the narrow escape
they had had, by the merciful view which the Jury had taken of their
case, and who had satisfied there consciences by returning a verdict
of Not Guilty. Had a verdict of guilty been returned, added His
Honor, he would have felt it his duty to have sent the husband to
an ironed-gang for two years, and the wife for the same time to
the 3rd class of the Factory. He counselled them in future never
to drink anything stronger than water. They were then discharged.
Notes
|