Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

adopting a child. i
KURSB FIXED. I
The hearing ot a case in which hate Mood!, I
nurse, was charged with having received eerum I
payment for the boarding out of an imam child I
otherwise than in pursuance oi the provision! _ ef I
section 0 m' the Infant Life Projection Act 1M>. I
occupied cmnc time at the Corlton cou,. y»ut I
The mother of the child, who is a single wwwa
residing near Castleinaine, stated that on 1st April I
last she gave birtli to a child at the hoiac m I
Nurse Basscr, 15 Dnuumond-strcet. About 1« I
May she saw Nui>e Woods at 261 Ames-ctrcet. I
and said, 4I noticed an advertisement in tne I
paper, and came to see about it." Dendant re- I
plied, "I could get your child adopted if you I
could raise £4 or £5. 1 know a lady from
Wangaratta who will take him. is not a I
wealtbv woman, but Is very comfortable. Hi I
will be well treated, and in a good home. oa
3rd Mav witness handed defendant the infant anl I
£5 together with .1 present of 30 for hincii.
She had said that she never made anything rut
of the infants unless the mother lik a to give I
her a prtlient. Witness slid she wanted no trou- I
ble over it, and that H there was gome to be I
any trouble she would not give de.cndant the I
.haby. On witness stating that the child had I
not be-on vaccinated, defendant said shv did n.'t I
believe in vaccination, but would see that it wja I
done. In June witness wrote to Nurse noeos. I
inquiring if the child ha<l been ,acc::ute»it ana I
got a reply that he had been vaccinateil, ami I
she would <end the certificate. On 26th Septon- I
ber the child was brought to the place where I
witness was working an i dumped back to her. I
In reply to Mr. . Cho'mley, witness said defeadin, I
inionncd her that the £4 or £5 was to buy I
clothes and a go cart. „ . I
Constable Sharpo stated that on nth Septan- I
bor he asked defendant if she had had anythi? I
to do with the adoption of an infant, and sw I
replied in the negative, and on i\ subsequent oca- l
sion solemnly repeated the dental. When wit- I
ne>s showed her the letter she had sent to tne I
motlter, she denied having written it, and oiii I
Hut is not my signature." On tying showa I
the certificate of vaccination she also denied har- I
ing sent it to the mother. 4 .... I
After furtlior evidence had been given, defendant |
was fined £5, with 20/ costs, or a months im- I
prisonmcnt. The amount was increased to £o 1/ I
io permit of an appeal, and a stay of proceedings I
was granted. I
$