On the morning of Wednesday 28th June 1899, a special sitting of the Bearsted Police Court was held, at the Sessions House, Maidstone, before Mr Whitehead (chairman), and Major-Gen. Cumberland, for the purpose of investigating the charge against a young couple who resided at Leeds, named Ernest and Adelaide Batten, of neglecting their seven month’s old child Adelaide, who  it was alleged, died as a consequence. At the inquest held on 19th June at the Hollingbourne Union, the jury were of opinion that the neglect was wilful, and returned a verdict of wilful murder against the accused.

Mr S. Lance Monckton prosecuted, on behalf of the Treasury, and the prisoners were unrepresented.  Mr Monckton. in opening the case, asked that the prisoners might be committed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Children’s Act. It had been ascertained in spite of their statement to the contrary, that the prisoners were not husband and wife, and therefore they were proceeded against under section 23, by which the man co-habiting with the woman, had to bear equal responsibility.

At the inquest the following evidence was given:- Percy Batten, brother of the male prisoner, said he resided at Harrow  Cottage. Langley, and was a gardener to Mr Samuel Skinner. His brother, with his wife and child, were staying with him for three weeks from the 7th March. The deceased during that period enjoyed good health, and seemed an ordinary healthy child. She was fed bread and milk, and attended almost entirely by his (witness’s) wife. His brother’s wife was well enough to attend to her child, and did not go out to work, but she never did so, and left the child,  to the care of his wife. On leaving his house, he gave his brother some furniture, which enabled him to occupy a whole cottage, in Back street, Leeds, they having previously always lived

in apartments. The child was then perfectly well. He saw the deceased about a week after she left  his house with her parents, but he observed no change in her appearance. Sometime after the female prisoner told him that a neighbour said child was in “a galloping consumption.’’ but this the neighbour denied. Daisv Batten, wife of the last witness, corroborated his evidence.

 Elizabeth Ledger said she resided next door to the prisoners in Back Street,  Leeds. She saw the deceased about a week after they took their cottage, and she looked a healthy child. Her parents repeatedly left  her at home for hours unattended, and during these periods she frequently heard her crying. On Saturday evenings they regularly left her from about seven or until ten. Albert Ledger, husband of the last witness, corroborated.

 Inspector Buff, of the N.S.P.C.C., said on receiving a communication on the 14th June, respecting  the deceased, he immediately proceeded to Back Street, Leeds. arrived there at 12.30, and found the house locked. He waited until 6.30, and then, as the parents did not arrive, and he heard a child repeatedly cry, he gained access by the back window. In company with a police constable, he proceeded to the front bedroom, where in a corner of the room the floor, he saw trunk, in which, on lifting the partially closed lid, he found the deceased lying on a pillow. He lifted the child out, and  found it, in a very emaciated state. He gave the child some milk. which the child,  partook of ravenously.  He summoned Dr. Tuke, who, on arrival, ordered the child’s immediate removal to the Workhouse. At 7.45 the parents came home, and admitted that they had been absent since 11.30 a.m. shopping at Maidstone. The woman said that as the child cried so much bed, they laid it in the box, and it had since been good. The man said he had done all could for the child. He had washed and dressed her himself that morning before leaving. The witness weighed the child and found her to turn the scales at about 8lbs. The parents said they were married at the Richmond Registry Office in June, 1898. and the child was born on the 26th November of the same year at Staines, Middlesex. The husband said he earned 15s or 16s a week and his wife 1s 6d. a  day. He had ascertained that the child was insured in the Prudential Insurance Office, but as she had died within three calendar months of the issuing of the policy, which was dated the 24th April, the prisoners were not entitled to any sum. He had since been to Staines and Richmond, and searched the marriage registers for 1898, but failed to find any record of the prisoners’ marriage.

Dr. Tuke, in practice at Sutton Valance, Medical Officer for the Hollingbourne District, said he was called by the last witness, and he ordered the child’s removal to the Workhouse. He first examined the child and found, she was in a very emaciated condition. He gave the child some milk gave, which the child could not retain. She was a small child, and the box was plenty large enough to permit  stretching. He made a post mortem examination after her death, in conjunction with Dr. Whitstone, the Medical Officer at the Workhouse. All the internal organs were thoroughly sound, and he failed to find any trace of organic disease. The body was in a state of extreme emaciation, caused by insufficient food. The cause of death was starvation. He found no symptoms to show that the child could not assimilate its food.

Dr. Whitstone,. Medical Officer of the Workhouse, said the deceased was admitted to the infirmary on the 14th June, in an emaciated condition. The next day he weighed her, and found she did not weigh more than eight pounds. Adelaide died on the 16th June, and he made a post mortem examination with Dr. Tuke, whose evidence on that was corroborated. The normal weight of a child of the age of the deceased was between 13 and 14lbs.

Nurse Russell of the Workhouse Infirmary, deposed to receiving the deceased into her charge on the 14th June. Her body was blue and her legs and arms cramped. Her  condition indicated that she had not been well cared or  nourished. She was fed on milk and barley water. She died on 16th at two o’clock.

P.C. Featherstone corroborated Inspector Ruff’s evidence as to finding the body in the box, and added that whilst he was removing the child from the house to take her to the Workhouse, the female prisoner remarked “It’s a good job its going; it will better looked after.” On the 15th June, whilst he was detaining the prisoners at Bearsted they  said “We fed it first on boiled bread and milk, but it would not eat much, so we thought it was not hungry so we thought we could starve it for a time.” They also said that they put the child in the box because she cried so in bed.

 P.S. Kirby said he visited the cottage on the14th June. As the child was being carried out the house the female prisoner, who was very indifferent all the time, said “Good-bye, I hope they will poison it, and that will end it.” On the way to the station, after apprehension, the male prisoner said he had known his wife all his life, and they had kept company together since 1897. He went to Staines to live at the beginning of June 1898, and his wife went down to live with him in furnished apartments. They were married, the male prisoner stated, at the Registry Office at Richmond, on the 15th or 16th June, 1898, but of that, the witness could find no entry.

 Lucy Skinner, a housemaid, at Mr Skinner’s, Leeds, said the parents regularly came for a pint of milk daily  from the 8thMay  to 11th June. Mary Jane Wickens, a resident of Leeds, said on 13thJune, she sold  the parents a  pint of separated milk.

Thomas Tolhurst, bailiff to Mr Kruse, Leeds, said the male prisoner had worked for that gentleman on and off from 15th March  to 19th May. The prisoner could earn between 2s 6d and 3s  a day. He could have had constant employment, but only came on the average two days week. Between the dates, he had  mentioned the prisoner never worked a full week. The most, he had earned in one week was 13s.

This was all the evidence, and the Chairman said the Bench did not think the evidence justified a committal on the capital charge. The prisoners, in reply to the usual questions, had no witnesses to call, but desired to make statements.

The male prisoner said they were both sorry for what had happened. They never know that baby was so far gone, and it was not because they did not try to get on with it. He used to go to Maidstone to try and get work which he was used to in the grocery trade.  While he was at Mr Kruse’s, his wife was laid up for a fortnight and as they did not have any friends, he looked after her and the baby himself. If he had told anyone his wife was ill they would never believed him. After that he, himself, was ill for a week.

The female prisoner said she  also was truly sorry.  As she had not many friends, and not a good father or mother, she had nobody to help her. They were without food for fortnight  and her baby was getting shorter of food every day, she thought it only her duty go out and earn some money, her husband not earning enough money keep them all. She had no conveyance to take the child to her work, and she thought that if she came home to dinner, changed and fed her, she would be all right till tea. If she had had more means she would never have left the baby at all.

The Bench then committed the prisoners to take their trial at the next Assizes on the charge of manslaughter and wilful neglect. The prisoners applied for bail, which the Bench offered to grant, provided they each found two sureties in £25, and themselves in £25 each.

At the Assizes, Ernest Batten age 24 and Adelaide Batten age 24, were indicted for feloniously killing and slaying Adelaide Batten at Leeds, between 28th March 1899 and 16th June and with wilfully neglecting the child. It was alleged the female prisoner neglected the child and it died from starvation. They were found guilty, but the Jury recommended them to mercy on account of their extreme poverty. This, the Judge said, only saved them from a long imprisonment, he sentenced them to six months’ imprisonment each.

Poor little Adelaide Batten was buried at Leeds Church on 20th June 1899, aged just seven months.