On the morning of Saturday 23 February 1895 a man called Alfred Birkin and his wife. Mary Elizabeth were summoned before the Doncaster Magistrates Court charged with neglecting two children at Conisborough. The prosecution, Mr Baddiley related how one of their children, a four month old unnamed boy had previously died, and the couple were then left with two children, a son Ernest aged 3 years and a girl Anne was just fourteen weeks old. Mr Baddiley, was prosecuting the case on behalf of the NSPCC and he stated that the unnamed boy who had died 10 weeks previously after being severely burnt, had been attended by a Dr Gilchrist of Conisborough.

Mr Baddiley said that as time went on, it appeared that the orders that the doctor had given to the mother had not been carried out and the boy had subsequently died. It was only after his death, that it came to the attention of the authorities that their son’s life had been insured by its parents. Since that time a new Act had been passed for preventing such cases of cruelty to children. The Act provided that:

‘If any persons, over the age of 16 years, having custody of any child, wilfully neglects such child so as to cause it unnecessary suffering, such persons shall be liable to be fined a penalty not over £25.’

Now, nearly three months later, both parents were in the dock before the Doncaster Magistrates where once more, they had been charged with neglect. The NSPCC had become involved and Mr Baddiley told the court that the parents had been brought before the magistrates, because their youngest child was now also suffering from similar burns to her deceased brother. The same doctor who had attended to the previous child, Dr Gilchrist had been involved once more and he was the first witness, He stated that in his opinion there had been great neglect from the two prisoners in the dock.

He related how ten weeks previously one of their children had also suffered from burns. Dr Gilchrist said that he had been called to attend to his injuries, but the female prisoner had refused to carry out his directions to treat the child for his injuries. Instead she had cleaned the burns with dirty rags instead of clean ones. When Mary was asked if she had anything to say in her own defence, the prisoner claimed that she had been unable to care for the children or keep the house tidy properly because she suffered from fits. The witness stated that what’s more she had been having a fit when the child was actually burned and it had all been a terrible accident.

Mr Baddiley interjected at this point to mention that she had since been examined and medical evidence showed that the female prisoner, despite her fits was quite capable of attending to the children’s needs and keeping the house clean. However the prosecution pointed out that the state of the house where the family lived in Conisborough was disgusting, and the only furniture consisted of two chairs, a table and a bedstead. At this point the male prisoner interrupted and stated that there were four chairs in the house, to which there was laughter in the courtroom, until the clerk to the court intervened and ordered silence.

Mr Baddiley continued and said that when the officer from the NSPCC visited the house with a police officer, they found it in such a very dirty condition that they were forced to leave immediately. They reported that the bed itself ‘stunk to high heaven and was not fit for purpose.’ At this point Mr Baddiley was asked by one of the magistrates if Alfred Birkin was working. He replied that he was, but he claimed that he only earned 4s to 5s a day. An Inspector for the NSPCC called James Gibson was the next witness, and he told the court that he had been informed of the house conditions, and subsequently visited with a police officer on 18 February 1895.

There they found the mother with her eldest child, Ernest. He asked her where the youngest child, Anne was and she pointed upstairs. The witness said he found the little girl lying in the filthy sheets on the bed. He picked her up and saw that she was dressed only in rags and was extremely neglected. Going back downstairs, he told the woman that he was removing Anne as in his opinion she was in a state of unnecessary suffering. The child was then removed. When asked if he had anything to say, Alfred Birkin told the court that he had been out of work in the past, but had recently gained new employment. Once again he claimed that his wife suffered from fits, which had prevented her from attending to the children properly.

However the next witness PC Trueman told the court that he suspected that her inability was due more to the woman being constantly inebriated, rather than being subject to having fits. However it was the next witness that that made the most impact on the bench. He was an insurance agent, a man called Thomas Radcliffe. He gave evidence about the amount of insurance which had been taken out on the first child which had died. He also stated that the two remaining children’s lives were also insured. Then the male prisoner was asked if he had anything to say in his own defence, but he simply repeated the reason that the children and the house was so neglected was simply due to his wife’s fits.

However he told the court that he had ordered a new bed and called a witness called Mary Jones, who confirmed she was at that time making a new bed for the family. This witness claimed that she had known the family for many years and to her knowledge, the children were always fed well and cared for. Another witness was a man called James Williams who also stated that he too had known the family for many years. He claimed that the prisoners house had previously contained furniture, but since Alfred had lost his job, they had been forced to pawn most of it for food for themselves and the children. However he stated that Alfred was now working again and was in a better state to care for his children and his wife.

After hearing the evidence, one of the magistrates called Mr Yarborough addressed the two prisoners. He told them:

‘There is no doubt that the children have been shamefully neglected, and the other child might have lived if it had been properly attended to. The case will be adjourned for two weeks, during which time the house will be inspected. The children will also be carefully examined during that time.’

When the case was heard two weeks later on Saturday 9 March 1895, Mr Baddiley told the court that sadly the youngest child, Anne had since died. However he was forced to admit that the cause of death was due to bronchitis and asthma. Although he added that medical opinion was such that if she had not been so weakened by neglect, she might have been saved. A doctors certificate was produced to that effect. A Government Inspector, Mr Gibson gave evidence of the great improvement in the conditions in the house at Conisborough, and concluded that it was now deemed to be ‘satisfactory.’ As a consequence the parents were fined 20s each which also included courts costs.