Hendon Starvation Case

SPRING ASSIZES
NORTH-EASTERN-CIRCUIT
DURHAM Feb 24

CROWN COURT,-(Before Lord Chief Justice Coleridge)
John William Moss, 41, Carpenter, and Mary Ellen Calder, 33, widow were charged with the manslaughter of George Pickering Moss, at Bishop-Wearmouth, on the 24th of December, Last.
Mr. Wildy Wright and Mr. Granger prosecuted; Mr. Greenhow defended Moss; and Mr. Skidmore defended Calder.
This was an extraordinary charge of manslaughter against a man, and a woman with whom he was cohabiting, for causing the death of a son of the male prisoner, a little boy about six years of age, by starvation, coupled with a system of harsh and cruel treatment, principally on the part of the female prisoner. The case has excited considerable interest in the district, and the court was densely crowded during the hearing, which occupied the whole of the day. According to the evidence of Miss Crozier, the female prisoner had lodged in her house for some years, and had five children of her own living with her. In November 1875, the male prisoner came to live with her, and brought the deceased child with him, and after words a girl of thirteen, his daughter, who, after living with them a short time, was sent out to service. The child was fat and healthy when first it came, but it was kept confined in the house and not allowed to go out, and often beaten, so that it cried out and gradually became very much reduced and seemed to fall away. On one occasion the witness heard the female prisoner beat the child and say "she wished she had a cellar she could put it into where nobody could see it. It was a bad one, like it's father, and she wished it was dead." She then whipped it again and told it to go in and not come out again or she would cut it's throat Witness went and remonstrated with her and told her she ought to be ashamed of herself for using the child in such a manner, but she only abused her and told her if she interfered she would give her the same. Witness often afterwards heard the child slapped and screaming, and spoke to the male prisoner about it. She also inquired why the child was not allowed to go out, and if he was poorly. The female prisoner replied, "Oh dear no, he is not poorly, but it is because he asks people for bread and he is not allowed to go out." After that he dwindled away to a living skeleton for want of proper nourishment. Witness often gave him a piece of bread, and on some occasions the female prisoner slapped him for coming for it. Shortly before his death she heard some words between the prisoners, and the child crying. The male prisoner said, "It shall not go." The female prisoner replied, "He shall go. Many a one would knock his brains out." Witness went to the door and said, "Oh you wretches! are you at that child again? if you would give me the child I will take and keep it for nothing.

The male prisoner made no reply, but the female prisoner began to abuse her, and witness left. Witness heard the female prisoner whip the child twice on the Friday before it's death. On the Sunday it died, witness was called into the room and found the male prisoner with the child on his knee. He said "Oh Mrs. Crozier, my child is dying." She replied, "Well Mr. Moss, it is only what I expected; I could have told you three weeks ago it was dying." He said, "Oh Mrs. Crozier, you might have told me." She said, "You might have seen it was dying; you know the treatment it has had, being confined to the house; if you had been kinder to the child, this would not have happened." He said, "Well, Mrs. Crozier, the child is dying; it cannot be helped. I hope you will not say anything about it to get us punished. She replied, "It would not be as she wished; it would be for the authorities, and if she was called upon she would have to tell the truth." He came to witness's house twice afterwards and asked her not to say anything about it; it was not her wish for the child to be used so. Witness replied, he was there, and he should not have allowed it. He said, "Well I could not help it."
On cross-examination she admitted she had been on bad terms with the female prisoner for considerable period, and had put the bailiffs into the house last summer for rent. When the male prisoner was out of employment the family were very poor, and it was a frequent thing for the neighbours to carry food into the house. She saw Police constable Rathey going in and out of their house frequently after the 20th of September, but she never informed him of this cruelty to the child or about their thrashing it. No stick or instrument was ever used, and the sound appeared to be the female prisoner's flat hand. The child was of very dirty habits. The prisoner was out of employment when the child died.
Several other witness's were called, who said the child was always worse treated and worse dressed than the other children. They often gave him bread and butter, but from neglect and want of care, he became more like a monkey than a child. His head was in a filthy condition, and " when the attention of the female prisoner was called to it and it was suggested she should cut the hair off and wash his head, she replied with an oath that she would not do it, and if she had a back yard and a tap of her own she would scumfish the young _____." His cries were like the howl of a pup, and on one occasion she was seen holding him at arm's length with one hand and striking him with the other. On another, while the prisoner and the rest of the children were having their dinner, a neighbour went in and found the child standing at the foot of their bed his hands tied behind his back; and the female prisoner, on being asked what was the matter, said he was put their for punishment, the dirty little beast.

Mr. Henry Hylton Taylor, surgeon, medical officer for the parish, said his attention was drawn to the child in the latter part of October by the neighbours and a police constable. It was then in a very emaciated condition, and had not sufficient clothing to protect it from the cold. The other children were better clothed and near the fire. He examined him and found no trace of disease. They said he was wasting, and he told the female prisoner it was for want of food. She said it had as much as it could eat. He saw it three or four times before it died. He told the prisoners it was his firm belief it had not sufficient nourishment. The other children were well nourished. On the 10th of December it was very much emaciated and it's ribs were very prominent. The female prisoner said if he could do anything for the child she was willing he should do for it. He said it was not medicine it wanted, but food and fit clothing. She made no reply and seemed much annoyed. On post mortem examination the body weighed 18 lb; the average weight for a child of his age would be from 36 lb to 42 lb. The organs were all healthy, and in witness's opinion the cause of death was starvation.
On cross-examination he said he wished the relieving officer would call and see it, and he told his man to tell him, but he did not know whether he ever called or not. He saw no food in the house The child never complained to him.
Other medical evidence was called in corroboration of the condition and cause of death of the child. Several police officers were also called whose attention had been directed to the child with instructions to watch the case and report if anything was wrong, but who made no report.
For the defence a number of witnesses were called, who said the prisoners were in very poor, distressed circumstances having only one room to live in, and that they were often dependant upon the charity of the neighbours for their support. The prisoners made no difference in the treatment or clothing of the child, and it received the same attention and was as kindly treated as the others. It was naturally a very delicate sickly child.

It's food did it no good, although it had a ravenous appetite and would eat five meals a day, and was always begging from the neighbours for bread when it could get out. It had very dirty habits, and was occasionally slapped by the female prisoner, but never cruelly treated.
On behalf of the male prisoner, it was contended there was no evidence of cruelty, and that he had provided it with food and clothing so far as his means would allow, which was the utmost the law required of him. For the female prisoner it was urged she was only bound to supply the child with food provided by the male prisoner, and that she had never withheld any from the child provided for that purpose. She had not treated the child harshly, and had in nothing exceeded parental correction. On behalf of both it was urged that the case was trumped up by Mrs. Crozier and the neighbours to gratify their vindictive spite and malicious feelings, and their testimony was perjured and untrue. The child did not die of starvation, but death was the result of natural causes. Poverty was no crime, and the blame, it was urged with very considerable force by both learned council for the prisoners, rested with the authorities, who stood by with full knowledge and watched the child gradually fade away and die without making one single effort to do anything for it's preservation.
His Lordship, in a very careful summing up, directed the jury on the law, and marked his sense of the conduct of the medical team and the police by ordering that their costs be disallowed, adding that he should cause the Poor Law authorities to be made acquainted with the conduct of Mr. Taylor.
The jury found both prisoners Guilty, and expressed their opinion that the parish doctor and the police deserved the greatest censure for their conduct.
The Judge concurred, and sentenced both prisoners to 15 years' penal servitude.