Mexborough and Swinton Times – Saturday 21 May 1904
Shocking Child Neglect at New Conisboro’
A Strange Case
A horrible case of child neglect was revealed to the Doncaster West Riding magistrates on Saturday, when Elijah Pickerill, a miner, and Charlotte Ann Pickerill, his wife, were summoned for cruelly neglecting their children on the 4th May.
Mr. F. Allen prosecuted on behalf of the N.S.P.C.C., and explained to their worships that the defendants were summoned for neglecting their child, and he thought that after they had heard the evidence, they would consider it a most abominable case. It was estimated that the child, which was 2 years of age, had been neglected for a lengthened period. He was going to call the inspector, who would describe what he saw when he went into the house. The case had only recently been brought to the inspector’s notice. He had made enquiries from the neighbours and ascertained that the ill-treatment had been going on for 12 or 13 months. He thought their worships would not want to hear all the disgusting details, but there was the question as to what to do with the child. The woman was not fit to look after it as anyone could see that she was in very bad health.
The Chairman: Have they no relations?
Mr. Allen thought there were none. “I think the best course would be to send the child to the workhouse under section 10 of the Act, with a view to it being treated in the infirmary. Continuing, one said he thought it would only be fair to say on behalf of the man that he tried to better the conditions of the home life. He had tried to get the neighbours to clean the house and he had washed and cleaned the child.”
The Inspector, Michael Dolan, said he was the local inspector of the N.S.P.C.C. This case was brought to his notice only recently, and he visited the house on 4th May. He saw the child in the presence of the mother. It was fairly well nourished, but its head was a moving mass of vermin. The hair was matted together, and it was covered with sores, and the child was unable to walk. The house was in a filthy condition. It was a five-roomed house, three rooms upstairs and two down. Two of the rooms upstairs were empty, only one being used as a bedroom. The only furniture in it was a bedstead with a flock mattress, which was full of vermin. The only covering was a piece of old quilt, which was very rotten. The stench was very bad.
He asked the female defendant how she accounted for the filthy condition of the house, and she replied: “I have been expecting it in this for some time; I have been ill on and off for years with anaemia.” The child fell down about seven weeks ago, and caused a sore at the back of the head, and “I have not been able to comb the hair since. My husband knows the condition the child is in.”
Continuing, the inspector said the child was in a bad way. On the 5th inst. he visited the house again, and saw both the defendants, and the man made a statement, blaming his wife. He said he had tried to clean the child’s head with ointment. Dr. McCormick went with witness upon the occasion of his second visit, and he questioned the parents as to if the child had been seen by a doctor, and advised them to consult one. Witness visited the house a few days later, and found out that a doctor had not been called in, and the father produced a box of ointment, which he said he had got from the chemist’s. There was little alteration in the child’s condition. He visited the house again on the 9th inst., but little improvement had taken place. On the 12th inst. he went again, and advised the removal of the child to the infirmary, but the parents would not consent until that case had been decided.
Dr. F. B. McCormick, a surgeon practising at St. Mary’s road, Doncaster, said he had only seen the child once, and that was on the 5th May. The child was two years of age, and he examined it in the presence of the inspector. It was fairly well nourished, and showed indications of being pretty well fed. Its face and hands were exceedingly dirty, superficial dirt, he might say, for its body was fairly clean, and evidently bore out the statement of the father that he had bathed it fairly regularly. The first thing that struck him was the filthy condition of the child’s head. It was living with vermin, and the hair was matted together. The scalp was exceedingly dirty, and right to the back of the neck was covered with sores, which were caused no doubt by the vermin. There had undoubtedly been great neglect on the part of those who had charge of the child over a continued period. The irritation caused by the sores at the back of the child’s neck would be very painful for the child, and would no doubt render its life miserable, and there was not the slightest doubt if the condition had not been altered, they would soon have seriously affected the child’s health. He had examined the house; there was only one room furnished. He corroborated the inspector’s evidence. The woman certainly looked as if she suffered from anaemia.
In answer to the Chairman, the Inspector said that the defendant worked at Cadeby Colliery, and earned 35s. a week. He had been informed that he gave the whole of his earnings over to his wife. He was working regularly.
Mr. Allen: We don’t press the case against the man; he is really a victim to circumstances.
The male defendant said he had tried to keep the child clean himself.
The Chairman said he understood that they did not wish to press the case against the man—he had tried to do better. The woman was certainly not capable of looking after the child just now. The Bench considered that the man was to blame; he ought to have helped his wife, and have got some one else in the house to look after the child and to keep the place clean. They did not think that the wages had been laid out judiciously in that direction. They would make an order that the child be sent to the Workhouse, the defendant would have to pay the costs of the prosecution, and the case would be adjourned for a month.