Archived Extracts

  An inquest was held by the district coroner, on Wednesday afternoon, at the Peacock Inn, Hucknall Huthwaite, to enquire into the death of a child, seven months old, named Arthur Sheppard. In opening the enquiry the coroner said that the deceased was the illegitimate child of a woman named Emily Sheppard, who was living with William Stones at that place. The child died on the previous morning, but it seemed to have been taken unwell on Sunday last. He was not aware of the circumstances in which the illness was first noticed, but the facts as reported to him seemed to indicate that there had been some neglect and want of attention on the part of those responsible for the care and nutrition of the child, which, though seven months old, only weighed six pounds. He had thought it needful to have a post-mortem examination of the body made, the result of which the jury would hear from Dr. Standen.
  William Stones, professional vocalist, living at Hucknall-under-Huthwaite, the father of the deceased, said that he had been cohabiting with the mother for about three years. The child died on Tuesday morning about a quarter past six o'clock. His daughter, aged 12, and a Mrs. Coleman were present at the time. He perceived deceased become unwell on Sunday morning. He was at home on Christmas Day, when the child seemed well and was fed by his daughter with bread and milk. The mother was at Mansfield, having left him owing to a quarrel. She returned on Tuesday night. She went away on Thursday, and during her absence the deceased was in the care of his daughter. The deceased had never had any medical attention. On Monday he appeared about the same as on the previous evening, but witness did not call in a neighbour until Tuesday morning, when Mrs. Coleman came. The child died a short time after her arrival. Since birth the deceased had been delicate and thin. In answer to the Foreman, witness said that the mother had been absent for about 10 weeks from the child since he was born - a month and a fortnight together, and less periods. Whilst the mother was absent he had left the deceased for four days in the care of his daughter, Maude, who had also to look after the other child of two years.
  Maude Stones said she had attended to the deceased since last Thursday, when the mother went away. Before going she told her to feed him regularly upon bread and milk, which she did. She bought a pint of milk daily, her father giving her the money. The child vomited, and was purged on Sunday morning. He got thinner during last week. He was unwell on Monday, and at night her father took him out of the cradle, and removed him to his bed, where he died the next morning. On the other occasions on which he had been left, the mother had told her to attend to the deceased well. For several days together she had been left alone with the child, but her father had supplied her with money to buy food. He gave the deceased some magnesia on Monday. She fed the child four times on that day. Mary Coleman, midwife, stated that she had attended the birth of the child, which was fully developed and appeared healthy. She saw it a week afterwards, and not again until Tuesday morning. She was then sent for by Stones. Deceased died soon after her arrival. She examined the body afterwards. The child was not nearly so large as when born. Witness, continuing, said she was shocked to see it. She had been a midwife for over 30 years, but never saw such "a skeleton of a child."- Dr. Peter Standen, physician and surgeon, deposed that he had made a post-mortem examination of the body. Externally, the child was ill-nourished, but there was no marks of violence. His weight was six pounds. An average weight at birth would be from five to six pounds. He considered that the death of the deceased had been brought about by want of proper nutrition. Having heard the evidence of the previous witnesses, the only opinion he could form was that the deceased had not had sufficient nourishment, or that it had been improperly administered, as there was no organic disease traceable which would account for death.
  Elizabeth Thompson, the nearest neighbour to Stones, spoke to having sold half-pennyworths of old milk occasionally to his daughter. On Monday she supplied her with some.
  The girl, recalled, said that the milk so purchased was used for rice puddings and was not given to the child. She added that she had fetched milk daily from a Mrs. Smith.
  On being called, however, Mrs. Smith denied that the girl had had any from her house for over a fortnight.
  In further answer to the coroner, the girl contradicted her previous statements, saying that on Sunday the child had no milk. It was fed on tea, sop, bread and butter. She got some milk from Mrs. Thompson on Monday, but she could not remember buying any during the previous week. There was none in the house, and bread and tea and toast were given to the deceased. She had told her father and the mother that the child wanted milk, but they said nothing.
  The father was also recalled and further questioned by the coroner as to the truth of portions of his evidence.
  The mother of the deceased, after being cautioned by the coroner, declined to make a statement.
  The Coroner proceeded to review the evidence at some length, and in placing the legal aspect of the case before the jury, said he did not think that there was sufficient evidence for them to take the responsibility upon themselves of committing the mother for trial for the child's death by systematic neglect. At the same time he put it to them to seriously consider whether there had not been such gross and wicked neglect by the woman, and if they thought he was equally culpable, but the father also, that they would be justified in saying by their verdict that they had been guilty of manslaughter. If the jury did not consider them guilty of manslaughter, he thought the parents of the child ought certainly to be dealt with for their neglect in another manner. Alt least the facts justified such a course. After deliberating in private, the jury found "That deceased died from malnutrition and neglect." They were of opinion that William Stones and Emily Sheppard had been guilty of much neglect, and thereby endangered the life of the deceased. They did not, however, feel themselves justified in finding a verdict of manslaughter against either of them, but trusted that proceedings for the neglect might be taken before the magistrates."