upload image

Child Neglect - Arthur Barrow Sansum - Georgina Chappell

Privacy Level: Open (White)
Date: 14 Aug 1895 to 12 Sep 1895
Location: Deptford, Kent, Englandmap
Surname/tag: Sansum Chappell Baker
Profile manager: Andrew Sansum private message [send private message]
This page has been accessed 53 times.

Case of Child Neglect

This is a series of transcripts of newspaper reports of a court case against Arthur Barrow Sansum (1858-1934) and Georgina Chappell (1867-1954) who were prosecuted for neglect of the children of Arthur’s first marriage to Mary Ann Dawson (1856-1890) .

The children named in the court case were:


[A report of court events of Wednesday 14 August 1895]

A THAMES POLICEMAN SUMMONED FOR NEGLECT

At Greenwich on Wednesday, Arthur Sansum a Thames policeman and Georgina Sansum, his wife, of 11, Cornbury Road, Deptford, were summoned by Inspector Chown , NSPCC, for neglecting their four children, Lucy, aged 13 years, Nelly, 11, Polly, 8, and Walter, 6. Mr Moreton Phillips prosecuted and Mr Pook defended. Inspector Chown said on July 2 he saw the female defendant and the children, who were very ragged, thin and wore a most dejected look. The four children were in a small back room, and all looked frightened. There were six children, four whom were the female defendant’s step children. One of the children said a neighbour had given them food. Witness examine the room and found a chair bedstead about 5 feet long. On the bedstead were a mattress and blankets, both in a black condition. There was an offensive smell.

Witness told the female defendant that the children had told him that they were allowed two slices of bread and dripping and nothing to drink. The only time they had anything to drink was when they had water to wash with. Witness said he also understood that the children had no fire during the last winter, and that they were told to get into bed and warm themselves. The female defendant denied the statements of the children. Witness again went to the house on August 2, when the bed was in the same condition and Dr cable examine the children. Cross examined: witness and found that the female defendant was a sober woman and that her husband had been in the metropolitan police (Thames Division) 14 years and had borne a good character.

Lydia Berry, of 13 Cornbury Road, said she had noticed that the children were looking dirty and miserable. She had spoken to the mother about the children’s condition. Witness told the mother to let the children go out. But she only allowed them out last bank holiday. Since then they had not been out of the yard. Witness had several times given the children food. The four step children were dressed differently from the other two.

Mr Fenwick adjourned the summons for eight days.

Published: Friday 16 August 1895 Newspaper: Greenwich and Deptford Observer County: London, England Page: 5, column 6 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0004564/18950816/075/0005 (accessed 23 Oct 2022)


[A report of court events of Thursday 22 August 1895]

THE CHARGE OF NEGLECT AGAINST A POLICEMAN

Yesterday, at Greenwich, Arthur Sansum, a Thames policeman, Cornbury Road, Deptford, and Georgina his wife, appeared to adjourned summonses for neglecting their four children. 'Mr Philips prosecuted, and Mr Pook defended.

A neighbour called Sims said the children were kept in a top-back room.

Mrs Wells, a next door neighbour, said she’s seen the child Polly in the yard at 6 o’clock in the morning, throwing dirty pieces of bread for the other children to catch at the window, and witness threw her some biscuits, and afterwards gave her some bread and cheese and some bread pudding. The child climbed up and got into the window. She had heard beating and screaming.

The child Polly stated that she and the other three children were locked in a room upstairs. She did not ask to go into the yard, but Alice (her half-sister) asked for her and was refused. Sometimes when Walter, age 6, asked for his tea, his mother would say “I have no bread in the house and you will have to wait until the morning, “ which he did. neighbours had given her food. They had been treated much better since “the man “ (inspector Chown) came. Witness had never cried with hunger, and had never been denied food when it was in the house. Walter had been beaten for being naughty. They had three blankets on the bed in winter. Her mother was generally kind to her.

Dr Cable said the room was 7 ft.² and 6 foot high. There was no fireplace, and the room was in a dirty condition. There was one chair-bedstead in the room, with only room for one child. The room should not have been occupied by more than one child. He could find no disease or any cause for the children’s emaciation, and he attributed the same to neglect. Two of the children were suffering from ophthalmia, and their clothing was dirty. The two children of the female defendant quite in contrast with the other four, and were clean and nicely clothed. The conditions sworn to by the witnesses would seriously interfere with the children’s health.

Mr Fenwick further adjured the summonses.


Friday 23 August 1895 Brockley News, New Cross and Hatchem Review Page 5, column 3 accessed 23 October 2022 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0004063/18950823/060/0005


[A report of court events of Thursday 29 August 1895]

A CONSTABLE CHARGED WITH NEGLECTING HIS FAMILY. – –

Yesterday at Greenwich, Arthur Sansum a Thames police constable, and Georgina Sansum, his wife of Cornbury-road Deptford, appeared to adjourned summonses for neglecting their four children, aged 13, 11, 8 and 6 respectively. – – Mr M. Philips prosecuted and Mr Pook defended. – – For the defence, Dr Ogden gave evidence and stated that the defendants were respectable and sober people. He noticed no difference between the four elder children and the female defendant’s own children. The four children looked better now than when he saw them last. Mrs Sansum attributed these proceedings to a neighbour’s spite.--Two lodgers in the house said the children all play together and were kindly be treated and given sufficient food. – – the eldet girl Lucy said her stepmother treated them kindly. Sometimes on a Tuesday They had no tea, When her mother ran short of money, but they had a double supply on Wednesday morning.

—other evidence was given at the sumonses were again adjourned

Published: Friday 30 August 1895 Newspaper: Brockley News, New Cross and Hatcham Review County: London, England Type: Article | Words: 393 | Page: 4 | Tags: none, column 5 Accessed 23 October 2022

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0004063/18950830/039/0004


[A report of court events of Thursday 5 September 1895]

THE CHARGES AGAINST A CONSTABLE

Yesterday, at Greenwich, police constable Sansum and his wife, of Cornbury Road, Deptford, again appeared to summonses for neglecting the children. The Summonses were again adjourned after two or three witnesses for the defence had deposed that the children seemed happy and well treated. – – – On leaving the court Mrs Sansum was seized with hysterics and fainted.

Published: Friday 06 September 1895 Newspaper: Brockley News, New Cross and Hatcham Review County: London, England Type: Article | Words: 596 | Page: 4 | Tags: none


[A report of court events of Mid September 1895]

THE CHARGE AGAINST A THAMES CONSTABLE.

Arthur Sansum, ATMs police constable, of Cornbury Road, Deptford, and Georgina his wife, again appeared to summonses would charge them with neglecting four of their children. Hyphen hyphen Mr Morton Phillips prosecuted for the Society for the prevention of cruelty to children, and Mr Pook as for the defendants. Hyphen hyphen – Marianne Greenaway, of nine, Croft Street Deptford, said she’d seen the defendants six children at their meals, and never saw any difference in the treatment of the four The subject of the summonses and the other two.

Believed Mrs Sansum did the best she could for them. Mrs Sansum told her the eldest girl ran away from home twice. – – Another witness gave similar evidence. – – – Female defendant, sworn, so the children had never gone to school hungry, and none of the neighbours had told her that the children were short of food. All the six children had their meals together, and she had done her best for them all. – – the male defendant admitted that the children were not allowed much tea, because he understood the people at the hospital had said that liquids were not good for children and suffering from eczema. – – both the defendants attributed these proceedings to jealousy on the part of the neighbours and dislike of the police in the neighbourhood. – – Mr poop having addressed the court, Mr Fenwick said he saw no reason to doubt the evidence of the children. He did not believe they had been treated in the same way as the female defendants own children. He could not, however, disregard the evidence for the defence, And the defendants would have to find each one surety of £20, and be themselves bound for £20 to keep the peace for six months, or go to prison for one month each, I would have to pay three Guineas costs.

Published: Friday 13 September 1895 Newspaper: Kentish Mercury County: London, England Type: | Words: 1964 | Page: 6 | Column 5 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000937/18950913/137/0006 (Accessed 23rd Octo





Collaboration
  • Login to edit this profile and add images.
  • Private Messages: Send a private message to the Profile Manager. (Best when privacy is an issue.)
  • Public Comments: Login to post. (Best for messages specifically directed to those editing this profile. Limit 20 per day.)


Comments

Leave a message for others who see this profile.
There are no comments yet.
Login to post a comment.