Mexborough and Swinton Times March 1, 1895
Inhuman Parents
Alfred Birkin, fitter and Mary Elizabeth Birkin, his wife, were brought up charged with neglecting their two children at Conisborough on 18 February.
Mr. Badiley, who appeared for the prosecution, said that this was the first case under the new act, passed last year, for the prevention of cruelty to children. The act provides that if any person, under the age of 16 years, having the custody of any child, willfully neglects such child so as to cause it unnecessary suffering, such person shall be liable to be fined a penalty not over £25.
With regard to the present case it appeared that defendants had had a child which died sometime ago. The child had been severely bunt and it was insured. The doctor who attended the case was of the opinion that there had been very great neglect of the part of the parents.
It appears that another child was also burnt, something like 10 weeks ago, and was still suffering from the burns. The child was 14 weeks old. A doctor had been called in, but their mother refused to carry out the doctor’s instructions as to the treatment of the child, thus causing it unnecessary suffering.
The defendant’s house was in a wretched condition, the furniture consisting of two chairs and table and the bedstead. When officers visited the house, they found everything in a filthy condition, and the bed was in such a state that there were obliged to leave the house. It was rotten and stinking, and fit for no one to use.
The woman was subject to fits, and this was the reason of their child being burnt. However, the medical evidence would show that the woman was quite capable of taking care of the child. The male defendant was earning from 4 to 5 shillings a day. James Gibson, a local inspector at the society for the prevention of cruelty to children, said that on 18 February he visited defendant’s house with P. C. King. The mother and two children were at home, namely, Anne, age 4 months, and Ernest aged 3 years. He asked to see the baby, and found it lying in the aforesaid bed. He took the baby up and found that its legs were wrapped up in the dirty rags, and it was in altogether neglected state. He also saw the other child Ernest. In his opinion both the children were in a state to cause them unnecessary suffering
Defendant: you say there were two chairs in the house? – Witness: yes – defendant: well, there were four chairs. (Laughter)
Defendant, continuing, said that his wife was subject to fits, and was not accountable for her actions on those occasions. He was at present out of work
C. Trueman gave evidence as to the state of the house. He had known the woman the worse for drink.
Doctor Gillchrist, of Conisborough, said he had attended the child who died from burns. He had seen the mother and father about the present child and had even then instructions as to its treatment. The child had suffered exceedingly from the neglect.
Defendant: how long have you attended my wife for fits? – Witness I have never done so, but I should think they would be epileptic fits
Mr . Yarborough: have you attended the child lately? – Witness: yesterday; the child was not in danger.
Thomas Radcliffe insurance agent, then gave evidence as to the amount in which the children were insured – defendant then addressed the bench saying that the reason of the neglect was that his wife had fits, and the condition of the bed was due to his wife’s spilling a basin of water and that morning.
He then called witness – Mary Jones said she was making a new bed for the defendants. She knew the defendants well, and in her opinion the children had always had plenty of food
A man named Williams then gave evidence explaining the lack of furniture in the house – Mr Yarborough: is defendant at work now? – Mr Baddiley: yes, fully
Mr Yarborough in passing sentence said that there was no doubt the children had been most shamefully neglected and the other child might have lived if it had been properly attended to. The case will be adjourned for a fortnight, during which time the house will be open to inspection and the ultimate penalty would depend wholly upon the treatment of the child during that time
Mary Fern Conisborough was charged with neglecting a child on 18 February. Evidence was given to show the drunken habits of defendant, who had systematically neglected to properly attend to her child. The child was allowed to go about in the cold weather with very inefficient clothing indeed. On the day in question, defendants child had been seen by P. C. Truman to be walking in Denaby. When you examined the child had a large wound on the heel with no dressing whatsoever. It was suffering greatly.
Mr F. Gibson, corroborated, and defendant pleaded that it was her first offence – Mr F. Yarborough said there was no excuse for her; she would have to pay 10 shillings and costs.