Last year I wrote about a very tragic story about Elizabeth
Ann Palin (nee Williams) that ended up dying after being taken prisoner for
public drunkenness. The poor woman had
lost four of her six children at a young age and I had wondered if that might have
been a reason why she drank herself to death.
I just found another article regarding Elizabeth Ann in the Northwich
Guardian April 21, 1906. Because of the
length of the article, it does not scan well enough to read so I have
transcribed it for you.
SAD NORTHWICH CASE
ALLEGED CHILD NEGLECT
A sad case, in which drink was alleged to be the primary
cause of the trouble, was investigated by Messrs. J.W. Deakin (Chairman) and
C.J. Hughes at the Northwich Police Court on Thursday, when a young married
woman, named Elizabeth Ann Palin, of Manchester Road, was charged on remand
with neglecting, exposing and ill- treating her child, Harold Palin, aged three
months, in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering and injury to his
health, between February 14th and April 14th.
Mr. J Ernest Fletcher prosecuted on behalf of the N.S.P.C.C.
whilst Mr. W. Bancroft defended and pleaded not guilty.
At the onset, Mr. Bancroft suggested in order to spare the
husband, who was a highly respected man,, and who felt the case acutely, that
there should be a consultation between himself, Mr. Fletcher and the Bench as
he felt would meet with the approval of the Bench, and save facts of a highly
contentious nature coming out.
Mr. Fletcher said that he was there to help his friend all
he could, but it was not responsible in the interests of the society and all
concerned that the case should be dealt with in such a manner. A certain responsibility rested upon the
society in connection with the case, and they wanted to be relieved of that.
Mr. Bancroft expressed himself anxious that the Bench should
remove the responsibility which rested upon Mr. Fletcher and himself, hence the
terms he was prepared to submit.
The Chairman – Can any arrangement be made by which the
child can be placed in safe keeping?
Mr. Bancroft – Yes that is provided for in the terms I am
prepared to submit.
Mr. Fletcher said he was prepared to go and discuss the case
in another room, but it was a matter which would lead itself to comment
afterwards. The sole object which the
society had in view was the protection of the child. He would not say anything about punishment
because they did not press for any penalty, but they asked the Bench to take
the responsibility from them of the future safety of the child. The case came before the Bench on February 27th
and it was then adjourned until May 22nd on the understanding that
the defendant would take the pledge which she did, but unfortunately failed to
keep it. The case was somewhat complex,
because the woman did not come under the heading of a habitual inebriate. She had fits of drunkenness and then was
absolutely uncontrollable. He had
nothing to say about the treatment of the child when the woman was in her sober
senses because he understood that the home was then a very happy one.
The evidence of several witnesses went to show that on
Saturday morning the defendant with the child in her arms was seen staggering
along the branch railway at the back of Hadfield Street and it was alleged she
fell down twice. On the evening of the
same day, the father took the child to Dr. Armstrong, who informed the Bench
that it was in a state of collapse. It
was cold and pinched looking. Its
condition was critical and there were three marks on the head like slight
bruises consistent with the child having fallen. Its condition was such as to cause it
unnecessary suffering.
P.C. O’Neill, called for the defense, said he saw the defendant
on Saturday morning at 10.20 and 10.45 and then she was sober, and did not
appear to have had any drink.
Mr. Bancroft contended that there was no case to
answer. The charge of drunkenness had
fallen to the ground, and there was no neglect alleged previous to
Saturday. The woman was not drunk on
Saturday, but was run down through nursing a child, which had been poorly for
three weeks, night and day. Whatever
might be alleged against her, nothing could be said against the husband who was
the best of husbands, the best of fathers and the best of workmen. He was prepared to submit to the Bench the
following terms: “That the wife and the
children go to her mother’s at Rhyl for four weeks. At the end of the month the husband to engage
a servant to look after the children and also the wife in the daytime, whilst
the husband is at work, this is to last for another two months – three months
in all.”
The Magistrate’s Clerk (Mr. C.E. Newell) – What authority
will a servant have to look after her mistress?
Mr. Bancroft – We will go in for a good respectable girl.
Mr. Fletcher said, on behalf of the society, if the Bench
thought the terms were such as they could agree to under the circumstances he would
be satisfied.
The Bench retired and returned after about 10 minute
absence.
The Chairman said those cases were always sad to
investigate. They looked carefully into
the circumstances and they thought the best suggestion was the one made with a
little extension – that she should go to her mother’s house at Rhyl with the
child for a month and on returning her husband should engage a servant for
three month. The case would be dismissed
on the husband agreeing to the terms and if in the meantime the society found
the woman was not carrying out their wishes they could take out a warrant.
Mr. Palin concurred with the Magistrates suggestions.
Before I go on any further, I just want to state that Harold
did indeed live a long life and died at the age of 93. Elizabeth, on the other hand, died not
three years after this court case on February 28 1909. In the 1911 census Harold and his older brother Arthur were living with their maternal grandparents in Rhyl.
So with this new piece of information, I am not sure what to
think. Did the previous three children
die of neglect and that is why the N.S.P.C.C.
(National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) were so
concerned with this child?
What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment