ILL-TREATMENT OF A CHILD.
[Per Press Association. DUNEDIN, Oct. 4.]
A serious charge of child-beating was heard at the Police Court to-day, Augusta Margaret Powell being charged with wounding, assaulting, and ill-treating Violet Powell. A neighbour deposed to being called in on three separate occasions; when the child was in fits. She was shown marks on her body, which were said to be the results of falling. A boy of fourteen said that while looking through the fence he saw the child being made to walk by being thrashed with a strap, and when she fell down she was thrashed to make her get up. Dr Martin said that he had first seen the child on Sept. 18, and was informed that it had had a fit the day before, but was then better. There was a small mark on its nose and upper lip, said to have been caused by a fall when in a fit. Witness considered that was quite possible, and, as the child was better, no further treatment was required. On Saturday he was called in again, and observed blue and black marks on the child's face. On asking the cause, was told it was a fall the child had had the day before; but, seeing bruises on the other side of the face, he doubted that statement. There were black marks all over the child's body, more especially on the left side, on the arm, leg, and thigh. Asked the cause of the marks, and accused said she had had to beat the child owing to its dirty habits. She said that some of the marks on the thigh were done by her, but the other marks she could not account for. Did not notice any marks on the head, but it was so marked all over that it was hard to find a place where there were no marks. Had seen the child again this morning, and found the left forearm had been fractured at no distant date. Blows would produce the marks he saw. The effect of these injuries was that the child was extremely nervous. Very probably the beatings were the cause of the fits. Cross-examined: Other causes alone might account for the fits. The arm might have been broken by a fall against some hard substance; but for this injury there was no grievous bodily harm. The child was well nourished and fed. Mr Denniston, for the defence, contended that the only "grievous bodily harm" sustained by the child was the fracture of the arm, and there was no evidence to show that this was caused by the accused, nor to show any direct violence on her part, nor to show that she had any ill-will towards the child, or any desire to do it an injury. She openly called in the neighbours and voluntarily stripped the child for their inspection. A reprimand or fine would meet the case. The Bench found that the child had been very grossly ill-treated, and fined the accused £5, and ordered her to find sureties, herself in £20 and another in the same sum, for her good conduct for six months. Inspector Weldon applied for costs, which were granted. -Star, 5/10/1887.
INQUEST AT ST. CLAIR.
An inquest the St Clair Hotel to-day before Coroner Carew and a jury of six, of whom William Wardrop was chosen foreman, touching the death of Violet Powell. Inspector Weldon was present on behalf of the police, and Mr J. A. Hislop watched the proceedings in the interests of the mother of the deceased. The following evidence was given: —
Dr W. Brown: I was called to see the deceased on the 21st ult., but as I was on the point of leaving for town I asked Dr Ogston to go instead. I saw the child on Wednesday last. I examined it. It was lying on its back in a state of prostration. The mother pointed out to me the effects of a scald on the buttock. It had the appearance of an ordinary scald, several inches square, about the size of the palm of one’s hand, I did not see any other marks. The child had a very pained look on its face, which led me to inquire about the condition of its bowels. I was told that it had had frequent passage. The motions were characteristic of an inflammatory condition of the bowels. I was told that the child had scarcely slept for two nights, and I prescribed something for the effect of soothing it. The child’s mouth had a number of white specks in it, such as are seen in thrush. I think the child was probably suffering from congestion of the bowels, perhaps going as far as ulceration. I said that I should come out the following day at two o’clock, but before that time they rang me up to say the child was evidently sinking, and I set off at once, arriving about 12.30. The child had died a few minutes before I arrived. I did not make any farther examination of the body. When I saw the child on the 30th I knew that Dr Ogston had seen the child. I was told that the burns had occurred on the previous Monday. The immediate cause of the child’s death was, I think, congestion of the bowels. This is not an uncommon cause of death after burns, and might have been caused by the burns; and was more likely to occur in this case, because the child had been suffering from thrush or something similar to thrush. I could not say for certain that the congestion was caused by the burns; the child may have been suffering from some bowel affection at the time of the scalding. When Dr Ogston left he told me that the child was beginning to mend; but on the Wednesday, the day I was there, diarrhoea had set in, and the child had taken a turn for the worse. If the child had been suffering from any bowel affection at the time of the scalding, the scalding would undoubtedly have increased the disease and accelerated death. I have been told that the child was subject to fits. It is a usual and proper remedy for a child going into a fit to put it into hot water, if at a proper temperature. It would be very hard to say what temperature would scald a child or a grown-up person. The temperature that would scald one child would not scald another. As a matter of experience, I know that water considerably below boiling-point will scald a child. The mother appears to be a very nervous woman. Dr Ogston visited the child from the 21st to the 26th inclusive, and on the 28th.
Inspector Weldon suggested that it would be satisfactory to take advantage of Dr Brown’s presence to get him to make an external examination of the body; and the witness said that he would very much like to do so, as on his former visits he had not made a close examination for fear of disturbing the child while it was in pain.
After being absent for a short time, witness continued: I find that the principal part of the scalding is on the lower part of the child’s back and buttocks, I measured the extent of it: about twelve inches up and down and nine inches across. That is in addition to the extent of surface I mentioned before. On the upper surface of the right foot there is a mark of a scald 1 1/2 in long by an inch wide, and on the left foot there is a small scald at the root of the toes. I did not undress the child. The scald is a severe one. After seeing this scald, I am of the same opinion as before: that it would increase any tendency the child had to bowel complaint, and might accelerate death.
By Inspector Weldon: The water that the child was put into was certainly too hot for a child. The scalds of themselves would be dangerous.
By Mr Hislop: The scalds had not so far healed at the time of death as to cease to be dangerous. I have met with cases where children have been scalded by being put into water that was too not. I can quite understand an excitable woman like Mrs Powell putting a child into water that was too hot, especially if she has been in the habit of working amongst hot water, and her hands have, to some extent, lost their sensibility to heat. I do not think that such a mistake could have been made by a careful mother but it is possible that in her state of excitement she did not see that the water was too hot. If the child had been suffering from disordered bowels, that might have induced fits. The child was well nourished and clean.
By Inspector Weldon: It is not frequent for children to be scalded by being put into water that is too hot.
By the Foreman; I think that the scalding in itself was sufficient to cause death.
Maggie Douglas, seven years of age, who was in Mrs Powell’s employment up till last Tuesday, said that the deceased had a fit on the 9th November. On the morning of the day on which the scalding took place the child was well and running about. Mrs Powell put the child on a chamber, and after a little while took Violet up in her arms and shook her, and put her back again. It was not a long shake. Violet looked as if she was going to fall off, and the mother took her up and laid her on the bed, giving her a few drops of brandy. Mrs Powell sent witness for some water in the bath, afterwards said that the bath was too big and had it brought in a tin bath. It was a small deep basin. Witness got some warm water out of the kettle which was on the fire, and also some out of the range boiler. The water in the kettle was nearly boiling; that in the boiler was cool, for the fire was low and the water had been put in in the morning. Witness felt the water with both hands; it did not feel too hot. When the water was put down, Mrs Powell said “Is that right?’’ and witness replied "I think so," Mrs Powell then put Violet’s feet into the water. The child had her day-clothes on, but Mrs Powell took her boots and socks off before placing her on the bed. The child did not seem to be in a fit when her feet were placed in the water, and did not cry or make any noise. After taking the child’s feet out of the water Mrs Powell bathed the child with water, continuing this for about ten minutes. The child did not cry, but shook itself. It was not put into the water; witness was sure of that. Mrs Powell laid the child on the bed, and then said that the skin was coming off. Mrs Powell went away for Mrs Mellick; who came at once and put flour and oiled rags on the child. Mrs Powell also telephoned for the doctor. When Mrs Powell saw that the skin was coming off she seemed sorry and as though about to cry.
By Inspector Weldon: The fire that heated the water in the kettle also heated that in the boiler. Mrs Powell was not in a temper when she shook the child. It was after the shaking that the fit came on. The child did not make any sign of pain when it was in the water; witness was sure of that. Witness, Mrs Powell, and deceased were the only persons in the house when the child was put into the water. Witness was at Mrs Powell’s a month altogether. When she first went there Violet had a mark on her left eye and one on her cheek. They were blue marks, not large ones.
By Mr Hislop: Witness had not spoken to Mrs Powell since Tuesday last. The child was treated kindly, and so was the boy. Witness was sure that Mrs Powell did not try the water with her hand before placing the child's feet in it.
By the jury: When the child had a fit on the 9th the mother did not put it into water; she gave it a few drops of brandy. Witness never saw the child beaten, but it would sometimes cry as it went about. The basin was one of the sort used for washing-up in. It was nearly full. Mrs Powell gave the child one or two drops in the water before laving it with her hands. After the skin was seen to be coming off, Mrs Powell sent witness for cold water. Some of this was put into the tin. Mrs Powell said “That will be enough.” More water was then put on the child. None of the warm water was taken out of the basin before the cold water was put in. Not much cold water was used; it did not make the water in the basin much cooler.
Dr Maunsell deposed that he examined deceased on the 21st ult. The child was lying on its back, with its knees drawn up, and suffering from slight collapse. The lower part of the abdomen, the buttocks, the lower half of the spine, the upper part of the thighs, and all the private parts were scalded. There were blisters on the skin. The soles of both feet, and the lower parts of the back of the calves also, were scalded. Witness thought the child was in a dangerous state. He did not prescribe; as he understood that Dr Ogston had done all that possibly could be done for the child. Witness did not notice that the child was suffering from anything besides the scalding. The child seemed to be well nourished. The mother was in great distress; she said that it had been done in a second, in a great hurry. The child had, she said, taken a convulsive fit, and she had popped it into the water for a second, before finding that the water was too hot. The appearances were in accordance with this statement. Witness had made an outward examination of deceased to-day. The scalds on the feet were pretty well healed up, but the others were quite apparent. The cause of death, he should say, was the extensive scald. If the child had been suffering from a bowel complaint the scalding would accelerate death; it would be bound to do one thing or the other —either cause death, or accelerate it. After a severe scald or burn patients frequently get congestion of the bowels, and die of that.
By Inspector Weldon: A child may be scalded by water at a lower temperature than that which would scald an adult. Adults accustomed to handling hot water might keep their hands in water that would scald a child.
Inspector Weldon: And produce deadly effects?
Witness: Yes; when scalded over an extensive surface.
By Mr Hislop: During the last twenty years I have known of two cases of infants being scalded by being bathed in water that was too hot.
By the Coroner: Mrs Powell said that the child had a convulsion. That was why she had called for the hot water. She did not represent that the child was suffering from any other cause.
Augusta Margaret Powell, refreshment-room keeper, residing at St. Clair: I identify the body as that of my daughter Violet. She was two years and two months old. I have another child, a boy, five years and six months old. I reared the boy from fifteen months old, and Violet since she was two years. While Violet was with me she did not suffer from anything but fits. She has had three fits since the affair in Court — one on the 9th of November, one before that, and the third last Monday week, the 21st ult. The child had not been well, and seemed unable to walk about. This had been so for about a week. I kept her sitting by the fireside in the kitchen. About ten minutes before twelve on the Monday I put her on the chamber, and afterwards lifted her up and sat her down again. I did this myself in case Maggie might hurt her. I did not shake the child before setting it down. I turned round to finish what I was doing at the kitchen table, when Maggie said: "Oh, Mrs Powell, look.” I picked up the child at once, and noticed that she turned quite black round the mouth, and her lips went perfectly cold. I took her into the bedroom and called to Maggie to get me some hot water, telling her to put the cold water into the tin dish first, then to add some hot water, and when she brought it to me I asked her if it was right. She said: “Yes, Mrs Powell; I've put my hand through it twice.” I sat the baby down in the dish. It had its clothes on, but I lifted them up, and held her with one arm under its legs and one under its head, holding her in the water for a few seconds. I then changed the position, and stood her in the water, lifting the water as far as her knees. I did this with my hand. I did not keep her many seconds standing in the water, and then raised her up and put her in the bed. When in the bed the child said “Hot, hot, mamma,” I turned up its clothes, and saw a piece of skin about the size of a five-shilling piece off of each hip, I then ran across and telephoned for Dr Brown or Dr Ogston, and also asked Mrs Mellick to come. I told Mrs Mellick what had happened. Dr Ogston examined the child and said the scalding was very slight — merely the skin. I did not notice that the child was badly scalded. I did not move her about too much, for the doctor said she was to be kept quiet. I did not feel the temperature of the water myself; the girl said it was all right.
The Coroner: Do you think it was safe to leave this to a girl eleven years of age?
Witness: Maggie is fourteen years old; her mother told me so, I was so nervous that I hardly knew what I did, and thought I should have let her drop. I dipped the child in twice; the water did not burn my hands.
By Inspector Weldon: The child had fits frequently.
By the Coroner: I have only used warm water this once; but Mrs Anscombe used it on a previous occasion.
By Mr Hislop: In using the warm water on this occasion I thought I was simply following a remedy that I had seen Mrs Anscombe employ with success. Dr Martin some time ago recommended me to use hot water in the event of a fit coming on. When the warm water was applied on the previous occasion, Mrs Anscombe used it; I did not try the temperature.
By the jury; I have never received anything from the father for the support of these children. I have been able to support them myself.
By the Coroner: When bathing the child the water did not seem to be hot; I did not feel it so.
Mrs Mellick, who was called in to see the baby, said that the scalding appeared to be a bad one. The mother was a good deal put about, and seemed inclined to blame the girl.
By Mr Weldon: The child appeared to be conscious, and asked for a drink.
Maggie Douglas was here recalled to identify the basin that had been used. It was nearly filled with hot water, within two inches of the top.
Mary Douglas, stepmother to Maggie Douglas, said that the girl was between eleven and twelve years of age. She had not told Mrs Powell that the girl was fourteen. On Wednesday last Mrs Powell told witness that Maggie had scalded the child, but that it was accidental, and witness would not say anything about it. On a previous occasion Mrs Powell told witness that Violet was not her own baby, but that she had money with it. She added that it had cost her nearly as much as she got with it. She said that she had got L100, that she knew the parents, and that the child was of good breed. Those were her exact words. Witness took her daughter away because she did not want to have anything to do with the case.
Mrs Anscombe stated that she had been called in on three occasions to attend the child for fits. She had put the child into water up to its knees. On one occasion she told the mother that the water was too hot, but Mrs Powell replied that it was not, and put the child’s feet into it.
By Mr Hislop: Mrs Powell always seemed anxious to adopt the best and quickest remedy.
By the Jury: Mrs Powell told me on one occasion that she had adopted the child, and on another occasion said that she had taken it for five years.
Mrs Mills, who saw the child after the scalding, said that Mrs Powell was most attentive to it, and anxious that everything should be done towards its recovery.
The jury, after retirement, announced that their verdict was that the death of the child was caused by scalds received through the gross carelessness of the mother.
The Coroner pointed out that this was equivalent to a verdict of manslaughter.
The jury said that they did not intend to go so far; and, after further consideration, returned the following verdict: — “That the death of the child was caused by scalds received through the carelessness of the mother in not seeing that the water was at the proper temperature.”
In answer to a question from the jury, the Coroner said that he would take time to consider what should be done. -Evening Star, 3/12/1887.
Violet Powell lies in Dunedin's Southern Cemetery, in an unmarked pauper's grave.