I begin this story with a couple of apologies.
First, the story of Henry Joseph Wain is a deeply sad one.
Second, his story was a chance find and I might not have pursued it had it not been for a certain anonymous poem which has been shared by a number of my Facebook friends. My apologies are to them, because I think the poem is a piece of trash. But that's merely my opinion.
The poem is about all the simple pleasures of life remembered as part of a childhood which are now gone - removed by modern technology and/or modern attitudes. It concludes with a wistful observation that perhaps life was better in those days. The mawkish arrangement of rhyming couplets also mentions physical punishment inflicted by parents on their children and how it was essentially harmless. With this, I don't agree. I prefer the words of the author Isaac Asimov - "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"
First, the story of Henry Joseph Wain is a deeply sad one.
Second, his story was a chance find and I might not have pursued it had it not been for a certain anonymous poem which has been shared by a number of my Facebook friends. My apologies are to them, because I think the poem is a piece of trash. But that's merely my opinion.
The poem is about all the simple pleasures of life remembered as part of a childhood which are now gone - removed by modern technology and/or modern attitudes. It concludes with a wistful observation that perhaps life was better in those days. The mawkish arrangement of rhyming couplets also mentions physical punishment inflicted by parents on their children and how it was essentially harmless. With this, I don't agree. I prefer the words of the author Isaac Asimov - "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"
ALLEGED CHILD-BEATING.
TO THE EDITOR. Sir, - Your correspondent “Vicimis” appears to be in a hurry, and for the sake of humanity, as he puts it, takes on himself to enter a public protest without waiting to see whether one was required or not, I can assure him that although I have refrained from rushing into print, as many would have done on reading your first article on March 12, starting with “Rumor says,” so and so, followed by your contemporary the 'Times’s’ paragraph next morning giving enough particulars to connect the two statements and publishing my name in full, I had not the slightest idea of any “hushing up,” but intended to wait and put facts against what rumor said. Perhaps your correspondent is one of those who imagine that silence always gives consent. Not so, however, in this case. I content myself for the present with saying that your article contained both misrepresentations and exaggerations of facts.
As for your correspondent, I would suggest that he should change his nom de plume to “Vindictive" — I am etc, Frederick Wain. Dunedin, March 24. -Evening Star, 24/3/1883.
The child Henry Wain, who was alleged to have received great ill-treatment from his father and step-mother, and who has been in the Hospital since the 8th inst., died at that institution about half-past nine o'clock this morning. An inquest will probably be held on Friday. -Evening Star, 28/3/1883.
An inquest will be held at the Hospital at 2 o’clock to-morrow afternoon on the lad Henry Wain, who was alleged to have been ill-treated by his father and stepmother. The ill-treatment is said to have occurred between January 20 and March 3 last. No statement could be got from the boy since his admission to the Hospital on the 8th inst. He appeared unwilling to say anything, and was in too weak a state. -Evening Star, 29/3/1883.
INQUEST.
An inquest was held at the Hospital this afternoon, before Mr Coroner Hocken and a jury of fourteen (of whom Mr H. D. Sutherland was appointed foreman), respecting the death of Joseph Henry Wain, aged seven and a-half years. Inspector Weldon watched the proceedings on behalf of the police. Mr Denniston represented Mr Frederick Wain, the deceased's father.
The Coroner said that the inquiry was one of some importance, and it might be that one or perhaps two persons would be seriously implicated. Probably the jury had heard a great many reports about the case — as to the boy being badly treated or starved. It was necessary that they should dismiss from their remembrance anything that they might have heard. Frequently reports of this nature, when subjected to inquiry, proved to be quite baseless and without foundation. If the jury found that death had been caused by the ill-treatment of the two persons alluded to, their duty would be to return a verdict of murder against one or both. He mentioned that as again showing the importance of the inquiry. There were a great many witnesses to be examined, but he did hot propose to sit beyond four o'clock to-day, and then to adjourn until to-morrow.
A Juror: To-morrow is Saturday. We ought to adjourn until Monday.
The Coroner: We can discuss that before adjourning. I will meet your convenience in the matter. The jury having viewed the body the following evidence was given:
Frederick Wain, caretaker for the Caledonian Society, deposed: The deceased, Joseph Henry Wain, was my son. His age was seven and a-half, and be was a native of Dunedin. He died in the Hospital on Wednesday morning last.
Elspeth Mitchell, a nurse: I live on the Macandrew road, South Dunedin, with my husband. On January 20 last I went to nurse Mrs Wain, the stepmother of the deceased, in her confinement. She lived in a house near the gasworks. I saw nothing of the deceased the first week I was there. In the middle of the first week I heard a feeble voice coming from a back-room in the home say "Good night." The two front rooms consisted of a sitting-room and Mrs Wain's bedroom. The other two rooms were the kitchen and spare bedroom at the back of Mrs Wain's bedroom. I went into the room for a pillow and a blanket. This would be near ten o'clock at night. The room was in darkness, but some light was thrown on it from the kitchen. I did not see anything in the room, but merely heard the voice, which proceeded from a bed behind the door. This was the first intimation I had of anyone being in the room. I had been in the room several times before in the daytime, but there was no one there on the occasions of these visits. It was a large room, with good-sized windows and a small wooden bedstead. The bed was made up in the morning by deceased's elder brother Job, who slept in the room. In the room there were a meat safe and a small cot. When Job came home from work on the evening following that which I have been referring to I asked him whose voice had said "Goodnight" to me. He said that it was his brother Henry's. I said nothing to Mrs Wain about the matter, but as I was a little concerned I asked Job about it the next day. I wanted to know where his brother was in the daytime. Job said that his ma did not want me to see Henry, because he was so poor. On the Sabbath evening — I had been there a week — Mr Ogg brought Henry to the kitchen door and asked for Mr Wain. This was the first time I had seen Henry. Mr Ogg spoke to Mr Wain. I did not speak to Henry. His father put him into the room where he was kept. I could not hear anything passing between the two men, but I noticed that Mr Ogg spoke pretty sharp or firm. When Mr Wain put the boy into the room he gave him a great beating with a strap which he had round his waist. The boy said that he would not do it again. Mr Wain came out of the room and shut the door, and in a couple of minutes returned into the room and gave the boy another beating. After the second thrashing I saw the father strip his son and put him to bed. I had gone into the room for some clothes at this time. Job was not at home during this time. I next saw Henry the following forenoon (Monday). He was standing on the centre of the floor of his room with his clothes on. He did not say anything. He was standing quite pitiful, looking down at the floor. I used to see him standing like this every day afterwards. On the Tuesday afternoon Mrs Wain beat him. I was in the kitchen, and though I could not see him I could tell that she was beating him. She did not use her hand; by the noise she appeared to be striking him with a stick of some kind. I thought it was a pretty strong beating, and it lasted about two minutes. She said to me that the boy had been up to some little tricks again. [The witness, hesitating the Coroner mentioned that there were some complaints by the parents as to the boy misbehaving himself. It was for this that the mother chastised him]. Two day afterwards the mother again beat him, She dragged him to the front of the room, as she wished me to see what the boy had been doing, but I saw nothing. On the occasion of beating him on the Monday Mrs Wain had tied the boy's hands behind his back and had so kept him all day. Some time in the evening she loosened his hands. At different times after that he was tied up with his hands behind his back. His mother said that she wished to stop his little tricks. He was kept in this room always, except when by Mrs Wain's orders he went outside for a few minutes. I could not be certain of any more than the two beatings from Mrs Wain. I had not the serving of his food.
The Coroner: Do you know anything about his getting any food.
Witness: I did not see his father serve him with food. In the afternoons I was about the yard washing, and cannot say whether he got food then. I did not see him get any. He got no food of a morning to my knowledge. I was about the kitchen always of a morning, but did not see any food taken in to him. I never took any dishes into or out of the room, nor did his parents do so, so far as I know. He asked me for a piece of bread about the middle of the second weak I was there. I said that I could not give it him, I asked Mrs Wain to give him some, but the refused. Once or twice after that he asked me for food, but I never gave it to him, as Mrs Wain had requested me to take no notice of him. The meat-safe was kept locked. I never saw any utensil come out of his room. When asking me for food he always spoke in a very low voice, so that his mother would not hear him. He looked very sadly and very poorly — a shadow. On the day I left he asked me for a drink of water, which I gave him the day I left (Saturday). All the last week I was there he stood in the same position in the centre of the floor from morning till night. He wore no shoes nor stockings, thin clothes, and no underclothing. He wore no waistcoat to my knowledge. It was warm weather at the time. I could not say what his bed-clothing consisted of. The boy always seemed low-spirited. I never held conversation with him. I think Job put him to bed at night. He seemed to me a gentle and sensible little boy. He used to say "Yes, ma," quickly and nicely. I offered to take the boy, because I felt sorry on account of Mrs Wain complaining that he wanted to run away, and her inability to manage him. Mrs Wain used to further complain that he told lies, was a thief, and that she had to lock up everything from him; also that he misbehaved himself. At that time she refused to let me have the boy. After I had left her, Mrs Wain came to me and asked me to take the boy, as she could not manage him. I said I would ask Mr Mitchell, and give her an answer the following day. On the Saturday night (March 3) I went to Mr Wain's house and took away the boy. He had gone to bed, and he got up and dressed at his mother's request. I asked the boy if he would go away with me, and he replied "Yes." Both Mr and Mrs Wain said he was bad with diarrhoea. I took him home with me on that night. On the Wednesday night I went to Mrs Wain's house. She asked how the boy was, and I said very poorly. I told her that had I seen the boy undressed I would never have taken him away, he was so poor and such a sight. I asked Mrs Wain how it was that his left ear was so badly cut. The boy had told me the brush-handle had caused it when used by his mother. Mrs Wain said that she did not know, unless it was done when he was coming over the Caledonian Grounds fence on the Sabbath that Mr Ogg brought him home. I said to Mrs Wain that the boy had told me his right eye was cut, and she said that I must not believe him. I asked about his arm. Mrs Wain said that perhaps it was done when he made his escape out of the Caledonian Ground. I then said: "A black mark would be gone before this time, surely." The boy said his ma had done it with a brush handle. It was plain to see that the arm was broken, as the bone stood out so awkwardly. I told Mrs Wain that I thought of sending him to school, but he appeared to be too feeble for that, and suggested that she should come and see him. She said that she might. She came up the next day. Before Mrs Wain came Dr De Zouche had been to the house. He came with Sergeant Macdonnell. Mrs Wain said that she did not know that the doctor was coming, nor did she think Mr Wain knew. She came while the doctor was looking at the boy. She said that we were to be strict with him I had the boy from Saturday night until Thursday afternoon. He seemed to me to be a nice little interesting boy. He used to move about the garden and play about, though very feebly. I saw no indications of the bad habits of which Mrs Wain complained, although I kept a strict eye over him. He made no attempt to run away. When I spoke to him about the treatment he had received from his parents, he said that he would like to stop with me, as, now that he was away from his ma, she would not beat him any more. On the Thursday (March 3) he was removed to the Hospital by the doctor's orders.
The Coroner: From what you saw while you were attending on Mrs Wain, can you explain what actuated her to treat the boy in the way she did?
Witness: I cannot explain. She said that she could not manage him. His father was away from home from eight till twelve and from one till five daily.
Mr Denniston here asked permission, on behalf of Mr and Mrs Wain, to put some questions to the witness. He did not suppose that it was necessary for him to urge the propriety of such a course. A man could not be committed for trial for larceny without opportunity being permitted him by means of counsel of breaking down the testimony of witnesses; the same opportunity ought to be allowed in an important inquiry of this nature. This permission was invariably granted in England; take the Bravo inquiry, for instance. There every person likely to be implicated was allowed to be represented by counsel, who could cross-examine the witnesses He urged that the same latitude should be allowed here. From the instructions he had received from the parents he would undertake to extract from the witness evidence which the Coroner could not get, because he was not in possession of the facts necessary to enable him to do so. If in an important inquiry such as that now on the privilege asked for were not conceded it would amount to a denial of justice. He spoke strongly, because he felt strongly. His Worship had intimated that he would take care that every justice was done. He had no doubt that the Coroner desired to do every justice; but he could not do so because he was not in possession of the facts which he (the learned counsel) had received from his clients. The Coroner had only the reports of the adverse parties; and, with all respect, he pointed out to that gentleman that he, being a layman, was not in the same position to extract evidence in crossexamination as he (Mr Denniston) was. In the interests of decency and justice, and on behalf of the two persons who may be involved in this matter, he asked permission to cross-examine the witnesses.
The Coroner: My own impression, as a Coroner of many years' experience, is that an enquiry of this sort is quite sufficient to get at the truth. You know as well as I do whatever may be the result of the finding of the court, that this is by no means a final verdict. Under the circumstances I will certainly consent to crossexamination. It is my desire that every justice should be done. But it is my opinion that every justice and complete examination can be elicited by myself and the jury. As, however, you say that there is a good deal of evidence that can be brought out by cross examination -
Mr Denniston: Pardon me. I said that my instructions would enable me to extract from the witness evidence which you cannot get, because you are not in possession of the facts.
The Coroner: I consent with some misgivings, only on the grounds I have mentioned however.
Witness: I did not like to interfere regarding the boy's treatment. I know I ought to have done so. The boy was fit to walk about if he had the liberty of doing so. He walked home with me.
To Mr Denniston: I cannot say what food was partaken of in Mrs Wain's house before eight o'clock in the morning. When the boy was with me he spoke about being badly treated at times. He brushed Mr Mitchell's boots one morning. When his mother called they talked to each other pleasantly. When he went to the Hospital he had the same clothes on as while in his father's house. Speaking of the boy's habits, his mother on one occasion said that she did not know what she would do with a girl growing up in the house. She said that her object in tying his hands was to restrain him. I was to be paid for taking charge of the boy — 3s 6d per week. The inquiry was then adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m. -Evening Star, 30/3/1883.
DUNEDIN.
March 30. Arrived — Camilla, from Hobart; Abbey Holme, barque, from Port Augusta. The inquest on the boy Henry Wain, seven and a half years old, son of Fredk. Wain, concerning whom the reports as to ill-treatment have been published, began to day. The only witness examined today was Mrs Mitchell, a nurse, who had been attending Mrs Wain during her confinement, and whose attention was attracted to the boy by his miserable appearance. The parents afterwards placed the boy in her charge, paying for his keep. She deposed to having seen Mrs Wain tie the boy's hands behind his back, and Mrs Wain had told her this was done to restrain him from an evil habit he had acquired. The inquest will be resumed on Monday. -North Otago Times, 31/3/1883.
INQUEST.
The inquest on the body of the boy Joseph Henry Wain was resumed at the Hospital at 2 p.m. to-day, before Mr Hocken and a jury of fourteen. Mr Denniston watched the proceedings on behalf of Mr Wain.
Martha McKechnie deposed that she was the wife of William McKechnie, residing at South Dunedin. Her house was next to Mr Wain’s. On the 26th February witness saw the deceased at the back window crying and beckoning to her. She asked him what was the matter, but she could not catch his exact reply. She then asked him if he was alone, and he said he was. She afterwards went over to Mr Wain’s house, and in answer to a question put by her deceased said he was very thirsty. He was trembling very much, and altogether appeared in a shocking condition. His legs and arms were bare, and she told him to roll down his shirt-sleeves and cover himself with a counterpane off one of the beds. He seemed anxious to get out for a drink. She asked him if he was hungry. He hesitated, and then said “Yes." The window was nailed down, but she managed to get the top part opened. She threw over some bread and butter, which he ate very quickly. He was begging for a drink, but she could not manage to hand one over to him. She promised to see that he got one as soon as possible. He said the door was locked. She noticed a cut on his nose, and that he had a black eye. She asked him how he got these injuries, and he said his mother had hit him with a stick. She said “Surely not”; but he replied “Oh yes, she did.” She asked him what he did to be always there, and he said he did nothing wrong. She then hurried away to the Caledonian Grounds to try and see Mr Wain. She could not find him, but on coming back she found the child’s brother at the door, and she did nothing more that day, as she thought the latter would attend to him. On the 2nd March, between four and five o’clock, she saw the child half through the window. The sight startled her, and on looking a second time she saw he was trying to climb over. She went to the house, and on arriving found two other ladies talking to him. He was begging to be taken over. She hesitated, and he said “Do take me over; I am so hungry and thirsty.” He was in the same state as on the first occasion. On being helped through the window he ran into her house. She gave him some tea, bread and butter, and cold beef. He drank two and a-half cups of tea. She refused at first to give him the last half-cup, as she thought it would hurt him. He said it would not, and she gave it to him. She could not say how much bread and butter he ate, as she was so excited seeing the child in the state he was. He said his mouth tasted very soft. She again asked him about his eye, and obtained the same reply as before. She then asked him about his arm, which she noticed seemed to be broken. He said his mother did it, and that he did not know why he was treated as he was He pleaded very hard to stay with her, and asked to be put to bed. She said she could not put him to bed. He was getting very sleepy. One of her children lifted the blind of the kitchen window, and he begged of it not to do so, as his parents might see him. The child spoke a good deal, but she was so much excited at the time that she could not remember exactly what he said. He had a serge blouse on, but no boots or stockings. She kept the child till her husband came home. She thought of handing him over to the police, as she thought there was something very far Wrong. Her husband agreed that it would be proper to give him to the police, and went for Sergeant Macdonnell. He returned with the sergeant and Mr Wain. Before that she asked the child if be got enough to eat. He replied that he got bread and dripping in the morning, but no dinner or tea. She said surely he got more than that. He said “No; only bread, dripping, and water.’' She asked him the question several times, as she thought he must be mistaken, but he always answered the same. Sergeant Macdonnell asked the boy whether he got breakfast, and he replied “Yes.” He then asked him whether he got dinner and tea, and he also replied in the affirmative to these questions.
Mr Denniston asked that this last part of the witness’s statement should be taken down. Most of what was going down on the Coroner's notes was notoriously not evidence, and he might as well take this down in justice to Mr and Mrs Wain. In a Court of law anything that the deceased had said would not be received as evidence.
The Coroner remarked upon Mr Denniston’s want of good taste in putting things as he did. He must say that both on this and on the last occasion Mr Denniston offended greatly against good manners in many of the remarks he made. Mr Denniston said that fortunately there was a public who could judge of matters of good taste, although a layman was the judge of matters of law.
The Coroner said he believed that a coroner and a jury were quite competent to make full inquiry into a matter of that sort.
Mr Denniston: You made a personal reference to my personal action, and that is what I object to.
The Coroner said it was extremely painful to him to have to make these remarks.
Mr Denniston: I decline to refer to the personal manner in which you have spoken. It is beneath criticism. It is quite unnecessary.
The Coroner: The reason for my remarks is well founded in my mind.
Witness continued; The child at this time seemed frightened. Witness knew this because when she told him his father was in the next room he seemed to hang back and be frightened. Witness told him no one would touch him, but said to his father did he not think it very hard to keep the child shut up day after day and night after night. Mr Wain said that it did seem hard, but there was a reason for it. They then took the child away. Witness next saw him on the Saturday in his fathers yard. He was washing himself. When witness first saw the child she told him to raise the blind and she looked in. The appearance of the room was clean and tidy, and she saw a little bed close to the window. It was a good large room. What shocked witness in the child’s appearance was that he was cold and trembling, and apparently dejected. After she fed and warmed him on the second occasion he looked very much better. When witness asked him what he had been doing he always said “Nothing.” He also said his mother hated the sight of him. Witness knew nothing of the deceased previous to the first occasion she had described, beyond hearing that there was a child shut up in the house.
Mr Denniston said he had no questions to ask.
Tabitha McColl, living with her husband next door to Mr Wain’s, deposed that the last witness called her to the fence to ask her if she knew the child was locked in the loom. She knew he was there, and corroborated the evidence of the last witness as to giving the child food through the window. Witness after this saw the child at the window screaming and shivering, but could not hear what he was saying to her neighbor. She had seen the child occasionally going to the water-closet before, and also peeping through the corner of the window.
John Ogg, licensee of the Caledonian Hotel, deposed that about the 20th January deceased was brought down to him by a constable from town, who asked where his parents lived. Witness took the boy home with the constable, but did not take particular notice of him. The father took the boy, but did not thank the constable for bringing him. On the 25th of January, at about 11 a.m., witness saw the deceased standing at the window of a room at the back of the grand stand of the Caledonian Grounds. The deceased called upon him to come up. Witness could not find his father, but told deceased he would be there in a minute. Witness then went away. There was nothing particular about the boy’s appearance that witness noticed. On the 26th witness saw deceased in the same place and position, and he asked witness to let him out. Witness saw deceased’s father in the and told the boy he would surely be there in a minute. Witness had his suspicions that the boy was there every day. For all he knew he might be taken out every day, and put back again. On the 28th the boy was brought into witness’s place by Mr McKay, and had something to eat. He was given some fowl, and he asked what it was. On learning, he said he had never seen anything of that sort before. He said he was hungry, and when witness’s wife gave him the food he ate it up ravenously. Witness took him home, and asked him on the way how long he had been in the room of the grand stand. He said he was there a week, and that he could scarcely get anything to eat all the time. Witness asked him if he had anything to eat that day before, and he said not; that his brother had come with a piece of bread, but had eaten it himself. Witness went into Mr McGrath's house on the Cargill road, and before witness could stop him he rushed into the kitchen and asked for something to eat. A piece of bread was given to him, and he ate it as though he had nothing before. When they reached Wain’s house witness asked Mr Wain why he shut his boy up in the grand stand without any food. Mr Wain was saying he was just going to take some food to him, when a female voice sang out “Come in and shut the door.” Witness visited the room at the grand stand and found that there was nothing in it but the bare boards and table. Next day witness looked to see if the boy was there, but found that he was not. About a week later witness informed the secretary of the Caledonian Society that the boy had been badly used. The secretary promised to go down, but, on being told that the boy had been taken away to his home, suggested that witness should communicate with the police. Witness informed Sergeant Macdonnell the same night of what he had seen. Previous to all this witness had often seen the boy in the grounds wheeling a perambulator with a baby in it. He seemed to be rather hard-worked, and at times had walked for hours backwards and forwards in the grounds. The last time witness saw the boy he seemed to be rather poor-looking.
To the Foreman: He never complained of his arm being broken.
Mr Denniston putting a question, the witness said that he did not think he was called upon to answer any question put except by the coroner or the jury.
The Coroner: The object of this inquiry is to get at nothing but the truth, so please answer all questions put to you.
Witness: When witness took the boy home he did not remember Mr Wain calling out his son Job and saying something to him. He might have done. Mr Wain might have asked his son Job whether he had not taken up some meat and bread to his brother, but witness could not recollect him doing so.
Mary Ann McKay, the daughter of Angus McKay, and living at South Dunedin, deposed that on the 28th January the deceased came to the house and asked for some food. He was blue with cold. Witness asked him how long he had been at the Caledonian Grounds, and he said he thought two nights. He said his brother Job had brought him a piece of bread about half the size of his hand, but that Job had ate it himself. Sometimes, he said, his parents came and took him away of a night, but on Saturday they did not. He had a bed at first, but Job took it away. He had climbed over the fence of the grounds with the assistance of a lady who was passing. He had a scratch in his knee through a nail scratching it. Witness noticed his arm had been broken about an inch above the wrist. It appeared well then, but the bone projected. The fracture looked as if it had been done for months. He felt no pain in his arm, which however was very thin. He went away, and came back on the 29th, about halfpast seven o’clock. He said Job had put him in the Caledonian Grounds, but he got out again. He had marks on his arms, and on being questioned as to these he said his arms had been tied, but he had wriggled himself free. Witness gave him over to some children who knew where his father lived, and they promised to take him home. He would have liked to stay at witness’s place, saying he would be comfortable there for the winter. He was not badly off for clothes, but they appeared rather small. He spoke as if he had no parents. He said he did not get half as much to eat as his sister. His brother and sister ate their breakfast while he looked on. He was very thin, and witness could not believe he was so old as he was, [Left sitting.] -Evening Star, 2/4/1883.
INQUEST.
We continue our report of the given yesterday at the inquest on Joseph Henry Wain: —
Mary Ann McKay, living at South Dunedin, said that deceased complained to her that he did not get half as much to eat as his sister Lizzie. His brother and sister ate their breakfast while he looked on.
To the Jury: The boy said that his mother had beaten him with a broom: that he did not know whether she had broken his arm and it did not feel sore now that it was getting better.
Mr Denniston: I may mention that this Lizzie spoken of is a baby who is only fed on the bottle. I mention this as showing what little reliance can be placed on what this little boy has stated. Without wishing to lead to any further disagreeableness, I would repeat that not one single word this little boy has said is evidence strictly speaking, unless the statements were made in the presence of Mr or Mrs Wain.
The Coroner: Well, I must differ from you to a degree. You know as well as I do the nature of this inquiry — that there is more latitude shown in this Court than in any other.
Mr Denniston: There is.
The Coroner: Yes; and unless one has that latitude it is impossible to come to much of a conclusion. You forget that I have not spoken to the jury about this.
Mr Denniston: If this was merely an injury I would not object; but it might result in a committal, and that is where the hardship comes in. However, I have made my protest.
The Coroner: I appreciate all you have said.
Mr Denniston: Thanks, Thank you.
The Coroner: But I know well the latitude that one must use in inquiries of this sort. Shut out what the little boy has said, and how much have you?
Mr Denniston: Nothing is left. Strike out what is not evidence, and there is nothing. That points to the absurdity of the thing as well as anything I could say. Exclude statements which ought to be excluded, and there is nothing left. You could not put it in a fairer way than that.
John Vezey, butcher, Princes street, Dunedin, said that about five or six weeks ago the deceased came into his shop at about half-past seven o’clock in the morning. He said his name was Wain, and said: "I am going to stay here, sir.” Witness asked where his father was, and he said at work; also that he lived at the back of the Caledonian Grounds, and that his mother was ill. Witness looked at him and asked if he was hungry, and he replied; “Yes; I have had nothing to eat for two days.” Witness then handed him over to Mrs Vezey, and he had some breakfast. The boy did not seem inclined to leave the place, and so witness eventually handed him over to a passing constable. He said he had slept in his bed, and witness noticed he had very good boots on.
At this point the Coroner said that they would not take too many witnesses of the same class. It would be merely multiplying evidence.
Mr Weldon remarked that besides the witnesses whom the police had summoned as necessary, there were several present who had volunteered their evidence, and he could not prevent them coming.
Jane Wright, residing at South Dunedin, gave evidence that she had seen deceased standing at the window beckoning to the neighbors, and had on another day seen his mother thrashing him. He was in the yard and he was in the doorway. She struck him several times with a leather belt. He looked up very pitifully into her face, and witness could not stand it any longer and went into the house. The boy always looked like a nice affectionate boy.
Elizabeth Mitchell, recalled, said that she did not know of the boy being at the Caledonian grounds of her own knowledge. During Mrs Wain’s illness witness prepared the food, and the persons in the house used to sit down to the table for their meals. The deceased witness never saw at the table, and was not aware of any provision being made for feeding him. She had no instructions to feed him, Mr Wain could not very well have taken any food off the table at breakfast or dinner without witness knowing it. After the second beating Wain said to the child “Get into bed, you stinking wretch.” The boy was kept in the centre of the room mostly all day by Mrs Wain’s orders. Some days his hands were tied. — Mr Denniston: He could never by any chance get to the window, I suppose? Was he confined in any way? — Witness: His hands were tied. — Mr Denniston: Did you ever hear him told to stand in the middle of the room? — Witness: Job told him to take his place. Witness one day saw a book in deceased’s hands. — Mr Denniston: Have you the slightest ground for saying the boy was ever prohibited from sitting down if he liked? — Witness: He dare not; he was told to take his place on the floor.
Mr Denniston here pointed put that this witness’s evidence was most and evidently dictated by animus.
The witness, when asked by the Coroner, did not call to mind any distinct order from the boy’s mother that he was to stand in the middle of the room.
Job Wain, aged fifteen, brother of the deceased, said that on the Saturday Mrs Wain was taken ill he took the deceased to his aunt’s (Mrs Pearson), to be out of the way. His uncle, however, said that Mrs Pearson had been taken ill too, and he had to take him back. Witness brought him back to the gates of the Caledonian Grounds, and wrote a note to his mother, telling her what had occurred. This note he sent home by deceased, not having time to go himself. When he came home in the evening he was told Henry had been brought home by the police, having run away up town or somewhere. Deceased was in the back bedroom that night, and was learning his lesson from a book. He was standing in the room. Witness did not know why he was not sitting down. There was not a chair in the room. He did not look as if he had been crying. He had bread and butter and a cup of tea for his supper. Witness did not remember who took it in to him that night. Deceased had his breakfast of bread and butter and tea in the bedroom also next morning, and remained there most of the day. He was sometimes in and out of the yard. His door was not locked. He had meat and cabbage for dinner that day (Sunday). Witness got his dinner in the kitchen, and did not know why deceased did not go in there for his meals. He had no beating at the time. On Monday morning witness took him to the Caledonian Grounds. His mother had told him to take him over to stay with their father. He did not make a noise in the house. Witness left him in Mr Watson’s room at the back of the grand stand The door was not locked, but witness thought the handle was too stiff for deceased to open it. He unlocked the door with a key, but did not lock it again. Deceased had no breakfast that morning before he left the house, but he told witness afterwards that his father had brought his meal to him. Witness took him home that evening after tea. Deceased said that he bad been playing with some large tickets in the room. He did not say he had been out into the grounds. It was the same all that week. Witness took him over about half-past six in the morning, and brought him back between six and seven o’clock in the evening. Witness did not take him over any meals during that time, but his father did, because deceased said so. Witness was at work, and did not know this of his own knowledge. The witness then contradicted his previous statement, and said he had token deceased some bread and butter for his tea once or twice, and brought him home afterwards, where he had some tea. He always went straight into his bedroom on reaching home. Witness did not think it funny that he should be left at the grounds in that room every day for a week. Witness remembered bringing deceased home on the second Saturday night, and on the Sunday he took him to the grounds and played with him for some time. Witness was in the back room on Sunday evening when Mr Ogg brought Henry home. Father inquired whether he had given his brother his dinner, and witness replied that he had. Mr Ogg said "I would give him a little beating, to see what that would do,” and then went away. After he had gone away father gave Henry a strapping. Mother was in bed at this time. Henry sat up for a little while, and then went to bed. He did not get any tea that night. Next morning (Monday) witness took him over to the grounds again and left him there the same as usual. When witness returned he was informed by his parents that Henry had been brought home by two little girls, and that he was not to be taken to the grounds any more. During the whole of this time Henry never slept out of the house he was brought home every night. On Tuesday the deceased had tea with witness in the kitchen. The only beating witness ever saw his father give his brother was on the Sunday he had alluded to. Sometimes, before her confinement, Mrs Wain would beat him with a switch. These beatings were for his dirty habits, or for telling lies, in saying that he did not get any food. Sometimes he was punished also for running away. When witness asked him why he got a beating he would say that he did not know, witness never noticed anything wrong with his arm, and he never spoke of it. He was very thin, and had always been so, but was well. He was weakly, and once failed to lift a chair when he tried to do so. This was before his mother was confined.
The Coroner: Were your father and mother fond of him?
Witness: He was always mother's favorite.
The Coroner: And your father — was he very fond of him too?
Witness; Yes he was. Henry never complained, and he seemed happy.
To the Jury: Witness never noticed that his brother had a black eye, or that his ear was cut. His brother used to sleep in the same bed with him. He brought his brother home between six and seven o’clock every night. Henry never said he wanted more food; he always said he had plenty.
Mr Denniston did not cross examine this witness.
The Coroner: I think, gentlemen, we have had a long sitting to day, and that it would be as well to adjourn.
A Juror: Until a late hour this evening?
The Coroner: I think it is hardly advisable to begin again to-night. It is now ten minutes after seven, and by the time we have some refreshment it will be very late. It will be more rational to adjourn until to morrow.
The Foreman: I have some business which must be done to-night. It would be inconvenient for me to come back.
The Coroner: I think the most rational way would be to adjourn until to morrow, and to meet at the same hour — 2 p.m. The adjournment was made accordingly.
The inquest on the body of the boy Joseph Henry Wain was returned at the Hospital at 2 p.m. to-day before Mr Hocken, Coroner, and a jury of fourteen. Mr Denniston watched the proceedings on behalf of the father of the deceased.
Agnes Wright, a widow living next door to Mr Wain, deposed that on the Saturday night before the deceased was taken away by Mrs Mitchell she heard a beating being administered to someone. She was sure it must have been the deceased, for she saw him at the window shortly before, and Mr and Mrs Wain had only just come in. She could not hear any cries from the boy. She heard blows of a strap or stick, Mrs Wain told witness two or three times he was a bad boy, and that she had to tie his hands. She said she could not trust him with her female child fifteen months old.
Jane Farrett corroborated the testimony of Mrs McKechnie with reference to the latter giving the deceased food and the deceased complaining about the treatment he received from his stepmother.
Hannah Grocott deposed that on the 26th February she saw the child standing on the window-ledge of the back bedroom with his hands up. He was screaming. Witness sent over Mrs Mitchell to see if anyone was at home, and there was no one besides the boy, who was dreadfully emaciated.
To Mr Denniston: Witness saw the boy at the window between twelve and one o’clock. She would contradict anyone who said that Mr and Mrs Wain were in during that time. Her reason for saying this was because the back door was shut, and the boy was looking through the window.
William Halligan, hotelkeeper, said that previous to the Christmas holidays he had occasion to go into the Caledonian Grounds, and he saw the boy standing in the archway opposite the gasworks shivering. His nose was three times the size it should have been Witness blamed himself for not taking him home. His face was very much disfigured. There was a bump on his right temple, and his eyes were blackened. Witness could not get a word out of the child. The two following evenings witness saw the child in tho same place, but, as on the previous occasion, he would not speak. Witness identified the child in the dead-house as the same that he saw in the archway.
The Coroner: You are giving your evidence in a rambling way, and I cannot get down what you say.
Witness: Well, I won’t ramble any more. It was Wain’s child that I saw in the archway. I do not know whatever I was thinking about that I did not take the child home.
To Mr Denniston: Witness had known Fred Wain for twenty years, and had repeatedly seen his children playing in the Caledonian Grounds. The face he saw in the dead-house he recognised as the boy he had seen playing about. He did not recognise the body as that of the same boy he had seen under the archway in a disfigured state.
Mr Denniston; That settles you.
The Witness: Settles me? I have not come here bearing any ill-feeling, and you must not heckle me. I will address the chair. It is no use your speaking to me, Mr Denniston, because I come here to speak the truth.
The Coroner: You have no right to speak in that way. The object of this inquiry is to get at the truth and nothing but the truth. There is to be no feeling in the matter.
Witness: I beg your pardon, sir. In reply to the jury the witness now said that the boy he saw in the dead-house was the boy he saw under the archway.
The Coroner; You are making different statements. You are not paying attention to what I am taking down.
Witness; Yes. I am, but Mr Denniston is taking my attention off. It’s ungentlemanly.
Sergeant Macdonnell stated that at about seven o’clock on the evening of March 2 Mr Wain informed him that his son had run away from him, and requested him to return him to his home if he came across him. While they were talking a man named McEachern came and asked if they were talking of his boy, Mr Wain said he was, and Mr McEachern said “He is in my house.” Wain said “I’ll go and get him, then.” McEachern replied; “From the state the boy is in I would like the police to see him first.” Mr Wain said to me “You can come down and see the lad,” and I remarked “If there is anything the matter with the lad I had better see him before his father takes him home.” Mr Wain took him aside and told him that the boy had a bad habit, and that was what the neighbours complained of. For this reason he had to keep his son at home. Witness remarked that it strange conduct for one so young, and Mr Wain then referred him to Drs De Zouche and Stenhouse and the Hospital doctor to substantiate what he stated. With Mr McEachern and Mr Wain witness went to the former’s house. Witness asked the boy if he got food that day. He said that he got his breakfast and dinner. After that his father took him away, witness going with them for some distance. Mr Wain told witness that he was sending the boy to a nurse the next day, and that he would be better looked after, as the nurse had no children. He also spoke to the boy about his bad habit, and the boy admitted it. Witness asked the father not to beat him, and he promised not to. He again said that the boy would be sent to the nurse tho next day. The boy was in a very weakly state, and there was a peculiar smell about him. The boy seemed to be quite frightened of his father; and in reply to questions put, answered “Yes, father” very readily. Witness instructed Dr De Zouche to see the boy on March 8. He was then living at Mrs Mitchell’s. Witness saw the boy stripped on that occasion. The left arm appeared as if it had been broken; there was a lump on the outside as though the bone were projecting. There were three marks on his back towards the right shoulder. Witness also noticed what appeared to be the remains of a black eye. The doctor asked how he got all these marks, and the boy replied that his mother caused them. Witness was under the impression that there was something slightly wrong with his nose. They met Mrs Wain outside, and she asked after the boy. Dr De Zouche said that his arm was broken, and inquired how it had been done. She replied that she did not know. Dr De Zouche remarked “Don’t you dress the boy?” and she replied “No his brother Job dresses him,” The boy was taken to the Hospital the same evening, Some days afterwards, while making inquiries, he saw Mr and Mrs Wain, and the latter wanted to say something about the child, but he told them that he could not receive their statement. [Left Sitting.] -Evening Star, 3/4/1883.
INQUEST.
The following evidence was taken after we went to press yesterday: -
Sergeant Macdonnell (continued): Witness wanted to take the boy Job to some place in the presence of witnesses and let him make a statement; but Mr Wain would not allow him, saying “It would be exposing the matter too much.” He wished witness to take the boy Job over to his (Wain’s) house, but witness would not do that. He took the boy aside on the grounds and heard what he had to say on the matter. Witness measured the room in the grand stand where the deceased was left. It was 10ft 6in x 8ft 6in, and 10ft 6in in height. The catch of the window was nailed down, and Mr Wain unlocked the door when they got there. Witness then described deceased’s room in his father’s house. There was a nail in the window-sill to prevent the catch being moved. Witness visited the deceased on the 16th March at the Hospital to get his statement. He appeared very weak, and very unwilling to say anything. Witness, before asking him any questions, told him to be sure and tell the truth and nothing else. Witness asked him whether he was kept all night in the room at the Caledonian Grounds, and he said no. Also whether it was true that he was made to stand all day lone in one spot on the floor in his room at his father’s house. He said it was, but he seemed so unwilling to say anything that witness gave up questioning him. He said he knew witness, and when asked if he would like to go home, said “No.” He said he would like to go to Mrs Mitchell’s. Witness then asked him again if his parents gave him food. He seemed unwilling to answer, and as though he paid very little attention, but afterwards said “Yes." He seemed too weak to say much. Witness forgot to mention that after he had been to Mrs Mitchell’s house with the doctor and returned to his own place. Mr Wain called on him and said that he did not know the boy's arm was broken; if it was, it must have been done when he was getting over the fence at the Caledonian Grounds. Hardly a day passed without either witness or the constable passing at the back of the stand, or close by on the Anderson’s Bay road. He had no recollection of seeing the deceased before he saw him at McEachern's house. Mr Wain only came to live on the Flat about a month before the New Year. Previous to that they lived at Opoho.
To Mr Denniston: The boy, while in the Hospital, said that he got his food regularly, or enough of food. When he spoke of taking Job away, his mother did not say “Anywhere but an hotel.” Witness suggested taking him to an hotel as being the nearest place. The deceased, when coming from McEachern's with his father, looked either very frightened or very obedient.
Dr De Zouche deposed: On October 15 the deceased was brought by his father to witness’s house. The object of his coming was to got him into the Hospital. His father said he had bad habits, and it was a question of an operation. Witness examined the boy carefully. (Results of examination stated.) He was in the Hospital for a fortnight, and was watched closely, but there was no evidence of the habits complained of. The boy did not seem to understand what his father complained of. He seemed to be a bright, intelligent lad, and answered sharply and to the point. His father removed him from the Hospital on October 30. He was no trouble, and the other patients in the ward liked him. Witness wished him kept in the place, so that he could have further opportunity of watching him. On March 8 witness visited the boy at Mrs Mitchell's. He stripped the boy, and found him suffering from high fever and inflammation of the left lung. The under bone of the left arm had been broken about an inch from the wrist. There were three marks of fading bruises between the shoulder-blades; they had been larger, and had shaded off. Near the broken arm there was a very faint mark of a bruise. The boy was very thin and wasted. He admitted that he had been given to the bad habits his father had previously spoken of. On being asked what had happened to his arm he said that his mother did it with a broom-stick; also, that she had bruised his back. Witness thought his illness would be a long one, and therefore recommended his removal to the Hospital. Before leaving the house Mrs Mitchell informed witness that Mrs Wain, who was outside, wished to speak to him. He met Mrs Wain in the garden and asked her if she knew that the boy’s arm had been broken. She said that she did not know, and that his brother undressed him. The next day he saw the boy in the Hospital. About a week later his brain became affected; it was an acute form of consumption of the brain, accompanied by water on the brain. This ran its usual course — it is almost always fatal — and he died on March 28. While he was in the Hospital the last time witness had him watched as to bad habits, and found nothing wrong. On one occasion during the boy’s illness Mr and Mrs Wain called at witness’s house, and neither of them seemed to know about the boy’s arm being broken. Mrs Wain said that he had always been a source of great trouble and anxiety to them, and that they had done their best for him. They said that he was unmanageable. Witness made a post mortem examination of the body on the 29th March in conjunction with Dr Drew, the acting house surgeon, at the Hospital. He found that death was occasioned by acute consumption; there was extensive tubercular deposit in the brain, the lungs, bowels, liver, and there was some in the kidneys. The bladder showed evidence of former irritation — probably a stone which had passed. The boy had probably tried to get relief to the bladder, and his doing so had been mistaken for the habit which his parents complained of. Witness had no reason for thinking there was any masturbation. The cause of the tuberculosis might be some lowering of the system. A person gets into a bad state of health, and is then perhaps more susceptible to cold in the chest. He found that the arm had been fractured, and the ends had united after a manner. He took out the bones. The fracture was perhaps two or three months old. The fracture might have been caused in two ways — first, by a fall, in which the lower part of the arm is thrown with great force against a hard object; second, by raising the arm to ward off a blow which is aimed at the head. As a rule it is the other bone which is broken by a fall. The boy’s constitution was not developed, and that might have caused the disease from which he died. Witness attended the boy’s mother shortly before her death. She died from general paralysis caused by alcoholism. If she had been addicted to alcohol at the time of his birth, or for some time before, she might predispose her son to tuberculosis.
The Coroner: This evidence discloses without doubt — I am not speaking now of that evidence which is not strictly legal — discloses great ill-treatment towards the child.
Mr Denniston: Is that a fair way of putting it? Is it not a fair question for the jury?
The Coroner: You have not heard all the evidence, doctor, have you?
Witness: I have read some of it.
The Coroner: Well, then, I put it to you whether, from what you have heard and read of the treatment which this boy has been subjected to, would that predispose or cause this disease?
Witness: It would, in a constitution previously disposed.
The Coroner: That is to say, confinement for a week in the Caledonian Grounds, then confinement in his bedroom, and also his being kept without food, and drink, and fire? — Those would be exciting causes in a constitution previously disposed.
Could you go so far as to say that this treatment to which the child had been subjected did cause tuberculosis? — No. It is probable it would. Is it a disease which attacks the children of well-to-do and careful people? It does at times, if there is a constitutional tendency. In this case the boy could not have suffered from the disease for a longer period than twenty-eight days.
Would the affection of the brain interfere with the replies given by the boy? — Not for some days after the beginning of the disease. The brain affection set in somewhere about the 16th March.
When do you think his replies would be valueless? — I should begin to hesitate about receiving them about the 19th March. Any replies given shortly after his admission to the Hospital I should deem perfectly clear and reliable.
Witness further stated: He gave me the impression of a poorly-nourished child, and I know of no other cause than want of food to cause that condition. I don’t know of any disease that the child may have had that might have produced that condition of things. The treatment that this child was subjected to would cause the disease in one previously disposed to it.
The Coroner: Was the condition of the body on March 8 that of a starved child? — It did not amount to starving. Poorly nourished would better express it.
The Coroner: Yes; there is evidence also of the child eating some meals ravenously. Would that be one of the symptoms of tuberculosis or inflammation of the lungs?
Witness: No.
A Juror: Could the child go about the house with a broken arm without the parents knowing it?
Witness: It is just possible. If the child had been in the habit of going to his mother she would of course know it. There would be some pain. He would be able to use his arm in about two or three weeks from the occurrence. He might use it before, with pain.
A Juror: Seeing this was done about three months ago the child must have been undressed frequently.
Mr Denniston: He may have undressed himself. The evidence is that on many occasions the deceased undressed and went to bed by himself.
Witness (to the Coroner): If the child had been properly looked after someone must have seen the broken arm.
Headley Vickers Drew, recently acting house surgeon at the Hospital, deposed that he assisted the former witness to make the post mortem examination of the deceased. His own opinion was that ill-treatment or privation would certainly tend to develop any latent disease there might be in the child’s system. He should say that the disease was probably inherited. It was possible that such a disease might have been developed without ill-treatment. He would not like to give a positive opinion that this child’s tuberculosis was brought on by ill-treatment or privation. Witness agreed generally with the evidence of Dr De Zouche. He wished to say that he considered the fracture in the arm had been caused by a blow. A twist or a fall might possibly have done it. It was also possible that a person might go about for some time knowing his arm was hurt, but not knowing that it was fractured. The child was somewhat emaciated when brought to the Hospital. Witness would consider him naturally a precocious child.
Daniel Joseph Conroy, warder in the Dunedin Hospital, remembered deceased being admitted to the institution on the 8th ult. Witness noticed an enlargement of the arm bone. The boy was cleanly in his habits. Witness was nearly always in the ward. He was a well-behaved boy. He did not answer questions put to him, and this witness put down to his temper.
To the Jury: Deceased’s parents came in every second or third day.
Mr Denniston mentioned that the doctor thought it undesirable that Mr and Mrs Wain should visit the boy.
This closed the evidence, and it being 7.15 p.m., the Court adjourned for an hour. On resuming, the Coroner inquired whether Mr and Mrs Wain were desirous of being tendered for examination.
Mr Denniston; In not tendering themselves for examination they are acting under my instructions. I intended that they should be examined, but after the medical evidence I think there can be no question as to the legal finding.
The Coroner: You don’t want them to be examined?
Mr Denniston: No. I advised them not to make any statement in the face of the medical testimony.
The Coroner, in summing up, said that he did not see that the evidence could have been shorter. Consistent with his duty as a coroner, he had always held that considerable latitude should be given to a Coroner’s Court, as its functions were very important in many ways. He was quite sure that it was judicious and right to admit in this Court hearsay evidence occasionally, especially in a case of this sort. To have shut out a great deal of what had been stated would have been leaving the deceased boy unheard in one sense. He spoke thus fully on the matter, because he was going to direct the jury strongly as to their verdict. There could be no doubt, in the first instance, that the most important evidence — that evidence on which they would find their verdict — was the medical evidence. That evidence had been given remarkably clearly and well by Dr De Zouche. From that there could be no doubt that the deceased died from what was called acute general tuberculosis. The evidence also disclosed that great ill-treatment had been practised by the boy’s parents. There was no doubt whatever of that. He did not mean to go through the evidence on that point. The evidence would be fresh in their memory, no doubt, and if it so happened that they had no doubt in their minds that the cause of the tuberculosis was induced by the inhuman treatment shown the deceased by his parents, it would be their duty to return a verdict of murder against one or both the parents. However, it appeared from the medical evidence that this connecting link was wanting. It was for the jury to say whether the tuberculosis was caused by the inhuman treatment which the child received. They would learn from Dr De Zouche’s evidence that this was one of those diseases which attacked not only the children of poor people but of those in better ranks, and its very presence was accompanied with the seal of a death warrant. By that he meant that there was no cure for the disease, which was not necessarily excited by a series of ill-treatment. Dr De Zouche had said that ill-treatment might have developed the disease if there had been a predisposition towards it on the part of the child, but both medical men confessed that they could not positively say that had been the case. Where such important issues were at stake he thought it would be highly injudicious of the jury to consider that the connecting link was supplied. He did not tell them what their verdict must be, but if they wished to know the direction of his own views, they were that the child died from natural causes, and the jury were quite at liberty to add any rider they chose. It appeared to him that this would be a correct verdict, and if he spoke for hours he could not say much more than he had done. He had intended to say a good deal as to the various points in the evidence, but he had no time to look over them, and gave the reason why he took a great portion of this evidence, and always intended to do so. The strict rule would of course be to take the boy’s deposition, but that had been impossible. He need not call the jury’s attention to the inability of the child to give any evidence of value as a dying deposition. The only way, under the circumstances, had been to take the statements which the deceased had made to these people at various times. They were materially the same, and there was a fair presumption that they were correct. The child, invariably said the same — viz., that he had not enough food, and that statement was corroborated by his condition, and the ravenous manner in which he had eaten on several occasions. The jury, as he said before, were at liberty to add a rider to their verdict, but it should be, he thought, one of death from natural causes. It was only right to say that the reason given by Wain for his confining the boy to his room, and probably also for keeping him without food, was corroborated by evidence viz., that it was in order to correct him of this bad habit, as it was thought to be. There was no doubt that Wain had complained about this habit before, and on the 1st October last he brought the child to the Hospital for treatment, and he was sent out uncured, There appeared, however, to have been a misapprehension as to this habit, but Wain and other people could have thought nothing else under the circumstances, and to a degree some of this treatment was as a corrective to the boy. But such treatment must appear to them quite incommensurate with the nature of the offence, and it seemed to him great cruelty, to use a mild expression, towards this poor child. The jury were then left to consider their verdict at twenty minutes to nine o’clock, and at nine o’clock they returned a verdict to the effect that the deceased died from general tuberculosis, induced and accelerated by gross ill-treatment and neglect on the part of his father and stepmother.
The Coroner: This, you know, is a verdict of murder.
The Foreman: It was not our intention to go so far as that; we thought we were avoiding that.
The Coroner: Probably you would have desired to consult me first. If the cause of the tuberculosis was the ill-treatment and neglect of these people, that means that they are guilty of murder, you know. I thought I was plainly laying that down before. The jury then re-considered their verdict, and at twenty minutes to ten o’clock found as follows: — “The deceased, Joseph Henry Wain, died from acute general tuberculosis.” A rider was added as follows: — “And the jury are unanimously of opinion that the deceased was subjected to gross brutality and illtreatment at the hands of his father and stepmother.” -Evening Star, 4/4/1883.
Surely no more heartrending story has yet been told in New Zealand annals than that which has been unfolded recently to a Dunedin jury — the story of the wretched life, the persecution, and the death of Joseph Henry Wain, a boy of nine years old. In the Dunedin Hospital the poor frail child succumbed to the effects of his ill-treatment, and breathed his last, making no sign. The gentle life, fairly beaten out of the poor body, departed in silence, and only mute evidence remains, in the shape of a fractured arm, an emaciated body, and a wan face, to show that the end has been accelerated by brutal usage. Those who looked upon the lad as he lay in the hospital ward, and knew his life was quietly ebbing away, strove to obtain from him some statement concerning the awful past; but he was rising out of the miseries of this world, and his thoughts could no longer come down to them — and in dying he made no sign. Then followed the inquest — and what a tale of cruelty was there unfolded! It is the old story; a stepmother — than whom a she-wolf would have been kinder — and an indifferent, heavy-handed, hard-hearted father, and between them a weakly child of nine. What devilish agency moved them to it, Heaven only knows, but these two, this man and this woman, did sorely ill-use that suffering creature, and drive out of him the flickering life that yet remained. It could not be confidently said that his death was the result of a specific act of ill-treatment but it was plain (and the jury pronounced it so) that it had been accelerated by the “grossly inhuman” treatment be had received at the hands of his father and step-mother. It is needless for us to recapitulate the shocking details of the story — it is an appalling one. It is happily not often that a circumstance of this kind raises the veil and shows us the baser part of human nature; and we trust it will be many a long day before the pages of our colonial story are stained by such a shocking record. -South Canterbury Times, 5/4/1883.
THE LATE INQUEST. TO THE EDITOR.
Oh, it was pitiful
Near a whole city full —
Home he had none.
Sir, — I have just finished reading your report of the inquest on the poor little child Henry Wain, and my heart aches at the thought of the young life rendered so piteously sad by the brutality of the only beings to whom, alas! he had to look for food and shelter.
Can you tell me if the amended verdict of the Coroner's jury will exonerate the guilty parties from the consequences of their cruelty? If so, Sir, it seems lamentable that the original verdict (which is also the verdict of the community) was not allowed to stand.
It may be said that their punishment can do no good, their victim having been removed from the starvation and cruelty he endured so patiently on earth, to a home where he will know no more hunger or thirst, and where a loving Father will wipe all tears from his eyes: but is not the punishment of crime considered necessary to protect the interests of the community? And what interests can be nearer the hearts of every one of us than the wellbeing of our little children?
Sir, the question which is agitating my mind is, How can a recurrence of such a tragedy as this be prevented? We cannot root out the cruel instincts which exist in all debased natures, but we can, by appealing to fear (always a strong element in such characters), compel them to curb their passions within certain limits; and the knowledge that punishment would inevitably follow detection would, I believe, have a wholesome effect. Possibly, too, something might be done by a system of district visiting, such as has already been inaugurated by the Rev. A. R. Fitchett in the parish of All Saints. Such a system, if followed by the other denominations, would, I believe, tend to establish a good understanding between the different classes in the community. The visits would be a check upon the evil tendencies of the ill-disposed, and cases of distress or ill-treatment could at once be made known.
Trusting this matter may be agitated further, — I am, &c, A Lover of Children. Dunedin, April 5th. -Otago Daily Times, 6/4/1883.
LE PAUVRE ENFANT.
TO THE EDITOR.
Sir, — "We find that the child came to his death from natural causes." And so poor little Henry Wain, aged seven and a-half years, is consigned to his last resting-place with no one save the stranger and the alien to drop the tear of loving sorrow over his newmade grave, or plant a flower to the memory of one who suffered so patiently and so long. His own mother, who would have shielded him from all harm, has long since gone to her final account. Perchance — who knows? — she might have been "waiting and watching at the beautiful gate" for the return of her little one. When one reads of that lowly little captive of seven summers, cooped up in the back room as the days and the weeks and the months rolled on, his hands tied behind his back, and a little bread and dripping and water for his breakfast, dinner, and tea, and nothing to break the dull, listless, lifeless monotony save the father's strap or the stepmother's broom-handle, one lays down the paper, draws a long breath through the set teeth, and feels a general tightening of all the muscles.
May I ask, Sir, if there is no law on earth that can punish such inhuman conduct? If not, then bear in mind, ye who ought to have cherished the delicate boy, and sheltered him from summer's sun and winter's storm, but who so shamefully, wantonly, and cruelly betrayed your trust — bear in mind, I say, that a day is coming, coming fast, when ye shall hear a voice, not the weakly whimper of a helpless, hungered child, but a mighty voice from the great white throne, and ringing in your ears those awful words, tenfold more awful to you and such as you, "Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of the least of these my children, ye did it not unto Me."
— I am, &c, M.H. April 7th.
[We have already stated that the matter is in the hands of the police, who will doubtless do their duty. —Ed. O. D. T.] -Otago Daily Times, 9/4/1883.
Frederick and Margaret Wain were brought up at the Police Court this morning on a charge of the manslaughter of Joseph Henry Wain, and on the application of Mr Haggitt, who appeared for the prosecution, were remanded until Thursday next. Bail was allowed to each of the accused in the sum of L300, with two sureties of Ll50 each. Mr Job Wain and another gentleman became bail this afternoon for Fred. Wain. -Evening star, 16/4/1883.
THE WAIN CASE
Dunedin, April 10. In the Wain case to-day, the Crown Prosecutor, Mr Haggitt, said the prosecution propose to prove by the testimony of witnesses a long course of cruel and inhuman treatment to this child, and then to show, by medical testimony, that the effect of that treatment was likely to cause tuberculosis in a child not predisposed to that disease, or in a child disposed to tuberculosis to develop it much more readily than it otherwise would be developed, to cause it to become dangerous when otherwise it might never become so, and generally to show by means of that medical evidence that the treatment to which this child was exposed was such as either to occasion disease which would cause death in a child not predisposed to it, or if the child were predisposed to it to accelerate the death of the child. Of course, in either case the result would be the same that the persons guilty of such treatment would be guilty of manslaughter. The evidence given by some witnesses to-day had reference to a period of two years ago, when the boy, Henry Wain, had been beaten and looked, the witness said, like a poor, starved, ill-used child. One of the principal witnesses was Martha McEacheson, wife of William McEacheson, of South Dunedin. She gave evidence as to seeing the deceased standing on the ledge of a window in his father’s house. Witness was in her own back yard at the time. The boy beckoned her to him, and she spoke to him. He was trembling, and seemed to be raving to get out for a drink. He was without shoes or stockings. He had a cut on his forehead, and a black-eye. She gave him some bread, which he ate ravenously. She was unable to raise the window to give him a drink. The child looked cold, hungry, and frightened. On the 2nd March she saw the boy get out of this window. He tried to climb over witness’ fence. He was cold and shivering, as when she had previously seen him, and she gave him something to eat. The witness then detailed statements by the child to her as to the injuries on his body, which, he said, had been caused by his mother’s treatment. -NZ Times, 20/4/1883.
PROSECUTION OF THE WAINS
[Per Press Association.] DUNEDIN, April 26. In the Wain case to-day Elspeth Mitchell, nurse, was further examined, she said that, on the night that Mr Ogg fetched the deceased (Henry Wain) back Mrs Wain got quite upset about the boy being brought home. She called to Job, the elder brother (who was in bed), several times to "give it to that Henry.” When Job wont into her room she said that Henry had done all this to her (meaning that he had excited her). Mr Denniston: I hope that it will appear in the depositions that the witness was recalled to give this evidence. In a day or two no doubt she will have something else to say. Mr Haggitt: That is an insinuation that the evidence is invented. Mr Denniston: I will put it much more strongly than an insinuation if you please. I heard the evidence given at the Coroner’s inquiry, she was closely pressed for full particulars before, and said nothing of this. Witness: Next morning Mrs Wain came into the kitchen, and witness expressed surprise at seeing her there so soon after her confinement, she said that she had come into the kitchen for the purpose of looking after Henry; that she would have him under her control; that he would not get any more going away; and that he would not expose her again. One time after this, when she was complaining about him, witness said, “If he were my boy, I would send him to the Industrial school.” She replied that she would have no hand with him, as he was not her boy. Mrs Wain further said: “When he was very young he used to call out in the middle of the night, 'I want you, daddy,’ and I had hard work to break him of it.” During the last week witness was there, while the boy was in his bedroom and the accused in the kitchen, she (Mrs Wain) used to call out in a mocking way, "I want you, daddy.” She complained that the boy was the cause of all her upsets with Mr Wain.
Dr De Zouche also gave evidence as to the state of the boy when brought to the Hospital, and the cause of his death. He said that while the boy was in the Hospital in October last, he was well behaved, and was not troublesome at all. Witness had no reason to suppose, either from his own observations or any reports from the wardsmen or patients, that the boy had bad habits or was uncleanly. He was spare in appearance. When the boy was again brought to the Hospital, a few weeks before his death, he was very thin. The boy told him his mother bad broken his arm with a broom. About a week after his admission to the Hospital, the brain became affected, and after this had run its usual course, the boy died. Witness made a post mortem examination, in conjunction with Dr Drew. He found that death was occasioned by acute consumption. There was extensive tubercular deposit in the brain, the lungs, bowels, and liver, and there was some in the kidneys. This disease was induced by a variety of causes, such as poor living, want of exercise, depressive influences, &c. He considered the boy predisposed to it. To-morrow, Drs Doughtrey and Alexander will give evidence. -Lyttelton Times, 26/4/1883.
CITY POLICE COURT.
Thursday, 26th April. (Before J. Logan, Esq., J.P.)
Drunkenness. — Five drunkards were convicted.
(Before B. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.)
Neglected Children. — Anne (10 years), John (7), Catherine (5), and David Hayes (2 1/2), were charged with being neglected children. They were found by Sergeant Mulville yesterday morning in a brothel in Castle street, the mother and another woman being engaged drinking beer at the time. — They were committed to the Industrial School, to be brought up in the Roman Catholic religion.
(Before Messrs J. Logan and H. F. Hardy, J.Ps.)
THE WAIN CASE.
Frederick and Margaret Wain were charged (on remand) with the manslaughter of Joseph Henry Wain. Mr Haggitt appeared to prosecute, and Mr Denniston defended the accused, Dr De Zouche continued his evidence. He said he wished to add to his explanation of tubercle that the disease tuberculosis was regarded by medical men as slightly infectious.
Mr Haggitt said he was going to summarise some points of the evidence in asking his first question about whether the disease had been accelerated by the treatment received by the deceased. On that ground his first question would be a rather long one.
Mr Denniston objected to the answer being taken down unless it was prefaced by the question.
Mr Haggitt agreed to this. — (To witness): Would confining the child in such a place as the room in the grand stand described by Sergeant Macdonell, from 6.30 a.m. to 6 p.m. day after day for a week; keeping him without sufficient food and in a hungry state while so confined; subsequently confining him day after day in the back bedroom described by Sergeant Macdonell, with the blind down, and still in a hungry state; compelling him to stand for long periods in the centre of the floor without shoes or socks, as described by Mrs Mitchell; allowing him no exercise, and keeping him indoors except when necessity took him outside; beating him severely with strap or stick, or both; and frequently reviling and abusing him, tend to produce tubercle in a child not predisposed to it?
Witness: Such a course would be very likely to induce tubercle in a child not predisposed, but I cannot say that it would certainly do so.
Mr Haggitt: Would such treatment tend to produce tubercle in a child that was previously disposed to it?
Witness: It would. I would like to modify that in this way: it would hasten the development of tubercle.
Mr Haggitt: That is my third question. Assuming the tubercle to exist before ouch treatment, would it tend to accelerate the growth of it, and render active and dangerous a form which otherwise might have lain dormant, and perhaps disappeared?
Witness: It would.
To Mr Denniston: Deceased's mother was attended by me at the time of her last illness. She died of general paralysis, caused by chronic alcoholism. That indicated a long indulgence in drunken habits.
Dr Stenhouse deposed: On the 16th October last the deceased was brought by his father to witness. Deceased's father said he had tied his hands, whipped him, and had done everything in his power to break him of a bad habit. Having failed, he brought him to witness. He also stated that the child had practised the habit from infancy, or since he was two years old. Witness examined the boy and found that there was no evidence of a vicious habit. While examining the boy he was struck with his emaciated and unhealthy appearance. He therefore had him stripped, and examined his lungs and abdomen. He found him excessively emaciated, his skin harsh and dry, and the abdomen retracted. On examining the lungs he found some dullness on percussion. The breathing was irregular. Witness told Mr Wain that his lungs were effected, and that he suspected consumption or general tubercular disease. He also said he thought it was present in the bowels as well. He recommended the boy to be taken to the Hospital, so that he might be under continuous observation there. Witness attended accused's first wife in the spring of 1877. He could not decide what was wrong with her, but he suspected drink. Witness told Mr Wain that he was not adopting the right method with the deceased, as the habit was caused by disease, irritation, or ill health, and he ought to have sought medical advice long ago. Witness understood that Mr Wain had not ill-treated the deceased, but had just done what any other father would have done under the circumstances.
Dr Alexander deposed: I was present when Dr De Zouche gave his evidence, and heard his account of the appearances he found at the post mortem examination Tubercle is a constitutional disease, in which certain growths occur in various organs of the body. These growths may either disappear or break down, causing local inflammation and ulcerations.
Mr Haggitt: May tubercule exist in the lungs without previous inflammation of the lungs, or does inflammation necessarily precede the deposit of tubercule?
Witness: It may exist without previous inflammation of the lungs; it does not necessarily precede the deposit of it.
Mr Haggitt: May tubercule exist, or be formed, without local inflammation?
Witness: It may in moderate quantity. A large deposit of tubercle would probably occasion local inflammation.
Mr Haggitt: It would not be the inflammation that would occasion the tubercle, but the tubercle that would occasion the inflammation?
Witness: Yes; that is my opinion.
Mr Haggitt: Can you say what is the cause of tubercle?
Witness: The causes are various — hereditary tendency, insufficient quantity or improper quality of food, impure air, confinement, want of healthful exercise, and absence of light. These all contribute to the production of tubercle.
Mr Haggitt: May tubercule be found in the lungs without occasioning inconvenience?
Witness: Tubercle may exist in many organs of the body without causing any perceptible inconvenience unless it were in large quantities, in such organs at the lungs, liver, spleen, internal glands, or in the bones. It is common in the bones.
Mr Haggitt: Would tubercle necessarily be dangerous?
Witness: In many cases, under favourable circumstances, tubercle withers up and disappears, and the person is unaware that be ever had it. In ordinary cases of inflammation of the lungs tubercle is not found. Supposing tubercle to exist in a dormant state in the lungs, the same causes that would produce ordinary inflammation of the lungs which cause the tubercle to increase rapidly both in the lungs and elsewhere. Inflammation causes the tubercle to become dangerous and lowers the vital power further, and tubercle which is previously not mischievous usually then breaks down and becomes dangerous.
Witness was then asked the questions put to Dr De Zouche regarding the treatment of the child, and the effect it would have on deceased.
Witness: To question No. 1: I say, it would tend to produce tubercle in a child previously healthy. To question No. 2: that the treatment would almost certainly produce tubercle in a child predisposed to it. To question No. 3: It would certainly aggravate existing tubercle, and probably render it dangerous.
Mr Haggitt: You recollect the treatment mentioned by the witnesses?
Witness:Yes. What?
Mr Haggitt: What would be the effect of it on an average healthy child?
Witness: The child would probably dovelop tubercular disease. That would be the natural consequence; it frequently occurs. If a child was brought to me, and I was informed he received such treatment, I would naturally expect to find symptoms of tubercular disease. If a child that had previously developed tubercle was subjected to such treatment the effect would be to increase it. I should say it would certainly be the case.
To Mr Denniston: The disease tuberculosis is most common in children. The early symptoms may be slight and overlooked. Loss of flesh is an early symptom. If a child has tubercular meningitis — the disease from which the child died — its demeanour is changed, and it often shuns its play. Sullenness and reluctance to answer questions might also occur. It would be correct to say that the symptoms break in suddenly upon what has seemed to be so far a state of perfect health. The early symptoms are generally seen. The duration of the premonitory symptoms would not be more than two or three weeks. I would dissent from an author who gave the average period as two months.
During this examination the witness complained that Mr Denniston was examining him out of a book. He also remarked that the author was not present, and that he (witness) was being placed in an unfair position.
Mr Denniston replied that the witness had no right to come to the conclusion that he was being examined out of a book. He (Mr Denniston) was brimful of the question, and was merely referring to a book in connection with numerous notes he had taken on the subject.
After the examination had proceeded a stage further,
Mr Denniston (reading from a book) said: Do you agree with the proposition that tuberculosis is built up almost without exception on scrofula as a basis?
Witness: I must appeal to the Bench. In the Supreme Court it is never allowable to examine a witness from a book. I am asked to agree with a broad proposition on a very small basis. It is not fair.
Mr Denniston replied that the witness had no right to assume that he was reading from a book.
Witness afterwards agreed to answer the question, though he remarked it was very difficult as put by Mr Denniston. He regarded scrofula and tuberculosis as one and the same disease. Hereditary tendency was a strong element in scrofula, but he would not say it was invariably so. He did not think that a scrofulous tendency was frequently the result of intemperance in the parents. A mere drunken tendency would not produce scrofula in a child if the mother were otherwise healthy. Tubercular meningitis occurred in well-nourished children, and the early symptoms being overlooked, it might come on suddenly. With a previous predisposition a very slight cause might set up the inflammation. Tubercular meningitis was usually fatal.
Dr Coughtrey was the next witness called.
Mr Haggitt said he did not propose to go over the same ground with him as he had gone over with Dr Alexander. — (To witness): Do you agree with what Dr Alexander has said on the subject of tubercle? Witness said that practically he did. He had read the daily reports in the newspapers. In answer to question No. 1 put to Dr De Zouche and Alexander, he said such treatment would tend to produce tubercle in a child not previously disposed to it. To question No. 3 he replied "Yes," and to question No. 3 he also answered in the affirmative.
Mr Haggitt: Have you anything further to add in explanation, doctor?
Dr Coughtrey: No; I don't think anything else is required.
Mr Haggitt: We now tender Dr Coughtrey to the opposing counsel for cross-examination.
Mr Denniston: Thank you; but with all due respect to Dr Coughtrey, I do not intend to cross-examine him, especially on leading questions.
This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Denniston said that in his opinion the evidence entirely failed to establish a prima facie case, and no such conduct had been connected with the cause of death in such away as to justify the case being sent to a jury. Any argument he could now make would be simply to point out the flaws in the evidence. If he did this, however, he had no doubt that it would only have the result of having these flaws and the other weak points of the case supplied by a number of the experts who were present in Court. Probably he would only be defeating his own object in pointing out these obvious weaknesses of the prosecution.; so he would have very little to say. The prosecution, in his opinion, entirely broke down in their case, and, according to any theory of manslaughter or law of evidence known to him, there was an entire failure of anything to show conduct such as could have been the cause of death through neglect, or any evidence connecting the cause of death with the conduct of the accused.
Mr Logan: Frederick Wain and Margaret Wain, stand up.
The accused, having complied with the request, the information was read over, and they were cautioned in the usual manner and asked if they had anything to say.
Mr Denniston: On behalf of both the accused, I state that they reserve their defence.
The accused were then committed for trial, bail being allowed in their own sureties of £400 each, and two sureties of £200. -Otago Daily Times, 27/4/1883.
THE DUNEDIN MANSLAUGHTER CASE.
The Wain case is over, and the father and stepmother of the poor little boy, Henry Wain, have been convicted of manslaughter. The verdict is a righteous one, and we trust the punishment to follow will be exemplary. The details of the case are harrowing. The picture of that poor little child, beaten and bruised — left with a broken arm unset until Nature, more kind than his unnatural parents, united the bones — famishing for food, shivering with cold — confined in outhouses, with hands tied and made to stand in a particular position, or wandering in lonely wretchedness up and down a sloppy path, worn out in a back yard by his poor little feet, raises a picture of horror which must go to the hearts of everyone, more especially to those of parents, who look on their own little ones and try to realise what Henry Wain went through until death mercifully terminated his sufferings. Few of those who have followed the evidence will, we think, be disposed to agree with the recommendation to mercy, so far at least, as the woman is concerned. The father appears rather to have been indifferent than actively cruel, but the step-mother's conduct is a blot on womanhood and on human nature. Such a Fury represented on the stage would appear unnatural, but truth is stranger than fiction, and this tragedy of real life has shown a character beside which the old hag in that powerful play, "The Two Orphans," appears a mild, amiable old woman. The excuse given for the recommendation of the jury is not entitled to any consideration in Mrs. Wain's case — at least we cannot doubt that she fully understood the results to her stepson of what she was doing, if she did not quite realise what they might be to herself. As for Wain some pity may perhaps be admitted in his case for having a wife who was apparently able to influence him to such culpable callousness as he displayed. -Evening Post, 14/7/1883.
SUPREME COURT.
CRIMINAL SESSIONS. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.)
MANSLAUGHTER. Frederick Wain (44) and Margaret Jane Wain (29), convicted on Friday of the manslaughter of Joseph Henry Wain, were brought up for sentence. Both prisoners appeared to be greatly agitated. Mrs Wain, on being called on, had nothing to say why sentence should not be passed on her.
The male prisoner, who spoke in a low, sobbing tone, said: Your Honor, I would beg your leniency on behalf of my wife. I must beg of you to remember that at the time of her illness, and directly after she was able to get about, her infant was taken ill, and after being nursed for about ten days it died. In the meantime her sister came backwards and forwards to our house, and brought her baby with her, and then this baby took ill of the same complaint and died also. Then, as to the unfortunate circumstance of leaving our boy that afternoon in the house, we were away that afternoon attending the funeral of my wife's sister's baby. I beg your Honor will take into consideration the position we are in, and our trouble at the time, and pass as lenient a sentence as you possibly can on the female prisoner. That is all I have to say, your Honor.
His Honor, in passing sentence, said: I have considered the question whether it is desirable to reserve the point you raised, Mr Denniston, and I am quite satisfied that it is not a point which ought to be reserved — that the case is altogether distinguishable from the case cited; and that the medical evidence is very clear and precise — precise enough, indeed, to amply satisfy my own mind of the justice of the verdict in that particular. That being so, I do not think it is my duty to reserve the point raised. (To the prisoners): You have been found guilty, prisoners, after a long trial and a patient investigation of the manslaughter of this unfortunate child. I think that the jury were perfectly justified in the verdict they arrived at, and that the same result would have followed if you had been tried in any place and by any jury whatever. The evidence that was adduced showed not only that you were guilty of negligence, but that both of you were animated towards this unfortunate child by a wicked and evil spirit. I shall take into consideration the recommendation of the jury to mercy, but at the same time I would point out, in respect of the ground on which that recommendation was based, viz., that they thought you did not contemplate the death of the child, that if you had contemplated the death of the child, it would have been murder and not manslaughter. I shall, however, in passing sentence, give the recommendation to mercy every weight. The sentence upon each of you is that you be kept to penal servitude in the Colony of New Zealand for the term of seven years. -Evening Star, 16/7/1883.
THE DUNEDIN FIENDS.
Everybody possessing a particle of human feeling will heartily rejoice that those wretched Wains — the Dunedin child-torturers — have met with some approach to their deserts. Not their full deserts by any means, for nothing short of the gallows would fulfil that requirement. Failing the rope, it is a thousand pities that the rope's end cannot be legally applied to their infamous bodies in order to awaken in them some sense of the sufferings they inflicted on that hapless child, who was done to death at their hands. Never was there a case in which the cat-o'-nine-tails might have been more righteously applied with the utmost severity to both man and woman — we should rather say to both the male and the female fiend. However, it is some satisfaction that they will each get seven years' penal servitude, in spite of the blundering coroner's ridiculous direction to the jury at the inquest, and of the preposterous recommendation to mercy by the jury who convicted them at the criminal trial. The idea of recommending to mercy such vile brutes as the Wains is so amazing as to be utterly incomprehensible to any ordinary mind. To most people tho killing of poor little Henry Wain by a protracted series of atrocious cruelties will seem a murder of the blackest type, quite inadequately expressed in an indictment for manslaughter. So the learned Judge seems to have thought, from the observations he let fall. But to find the prisoners guilty of this horrid crime, and then to recommend them to mercy, argues a degree of perverse inconsistency that no ordinary process of reasoning will suffice to explain. But we must be thankful for small mercies, and it is at least a blessing that this sapient jury did not find that the conduct of these amiable Wains was highly commendable. -Evening Post, 17/7/1883.
The observant reader, if they have got this far, will have observed that this story comes with no images. Henry Wain's grave in Dunedin's Southern Cemetery is unmarked. I have found no reference to his parents having been buried in the Dunedin area - perhaps they left town after serving their sentences. All that can be found of the "Dunedin fiends" after their trial is this:
Passing Notes
A prisoner named Frederick Wain, working at the Heads, had the small bone of his left leg fractured on Tuesday by an iron rail falling on his leg. He was admitted into the Hospital and had his injury attended to. -Otago Witness, 13/3/1886.
The observant reader, if they have got this far, will have observed that this story comes with no images. Henry Wain's grave in Dunedin's Southern Cemetery is unmarked. I have found no reference to his parents having been buried in the Dunedin area - perhaps they left town after serving their sentences. All that can be found of the "Dunedin fiends" after their trial is this:
Passing Notes
A prisoner named Frederick Wain, working at the Heads, had the small bone of his left leg fractured on Tuesday by an iron rail falling on his leg. He was admitted into the Hospital and had his injury attended to. -Otago Witness, 13/3/1886.
A photo, after all. Henry Joseph Wain's unmarked grave in Dunedin's Southern Cemetery. Photo courtesy of the DCC.
Frederick and Margaret moved to Australia. Their baby Lizzie mentioned died aged 4 yrs in 1885. An article on Trove 8 Dec 1898 in the Herald (Melbourne) tells of him being refused a hotel licence because of the gravity and length of his conviction in NZ.. This was 15yrs after Henry's death. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/241869496...|||anyWords|||notWords|||requestHandler|||dateFrom|||dateTo|||sortby
ReplyDelete