The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1909-03-02

| CONVICTION Set ASIDE.
The conviction for manslaughter of MI
and Mrs. Edwin NJ. Watson, of Moores
town, Christian Scientists, whose failur
to provide medical attention for their 2
year-old son, Granville, was alleged t.
have resulted in death, was set aside b,
the Supreme court on Tuesday. The opin
ion, filed by Justice Swayze, says tn
defendants were convicted of manslaugh
ter, that the specific charge was failure
to provide medical attendance for thei
minor child, and adds:
1--WE do not deem 1t necessary to con
slider the interesting, and in this STATE
novel, question which was argued as tt
how far the religious belief of the de
PENDANTS would excuse them. The CASE
was tried apparently without regard tc
the act of 1901, which provides that any
person having the care, custody or con
troll of any minor child, who shall will
fully neglect to supply the same with
sufficient food, clothing, regular school
education, or who shall wilfully abandon
or neglect the same, shall be guilty of q
misdemeanor.
Under a somewhat similar statute it
has been held in England that the relig-
ious belief of the parents was not suffi-
cient defence. This act does not seem to
have been called to the attention of the
trial Judge, and he therefore did not put
to the jury the question whether the pa
rents had wilfully neglected the child.
However strong the evidence may have
been upon this point, the defendants were
entitled to the verdict of Jury thereon.
Instead of submitting this question
the case was tried as arising under the
common law. The Judge properly said
in one part of his charge that the defend
ants could not be convicted unless the
jury found that they were guilty of cul-
pable negligence, and in another part of
the charge he put to them the question
whether the child died as the result of
their being grossly negligent, but in other
portions of the charge he told them that,
as it had been proven that the defendants
did provide medical attendance, they must
consider whether they provided this with
the same diligence that a reasonable and
prudent person would have done. He
subsequently charged that If they found
that the defendants called in medical aid
as soon as a reasonable and prudent person
would have believed it to be necessary
the verdict must be not guilty.
Toward the end of the charge he de-
fined negligence as the omission to de
something which reasonable man, guild
ed by those considerations which ordinar-
lily regulate the conduct of human affairs
would do; that in this case negligence, If
1t existed at all, is the failure to observe
for the protection of the interests of an
other person that degree of care, precau-
tion and vigilance which the circumstan-
ces justly demanded, whereby others suf-
fer injury by failure to do what reason
able and prudent person would have done.
We think that the effect of this charge
was to allow the jury to infer that the de-
PENDANTS had been grossly and culpably
negligent If they failed to furnish medi-
cal aid with the promptness of reason
able and prudent person.
''This ignores the distinction between
such negligence as forms the basis of civil
liability and that gross and more culpable
negligence which is required at common
law to constitute a crime. The charge
was therefore faulty as definition of the
common law offence.
"The conviction cannot be sustained
under the statute, since the jury have had
no opportunity to find whether the ne
elect was wilful. The judgment must
therefore be reversed"
The conviction of the Watsons for man
slaughter was the first of the kind in the
state, and the case was one which attract
ed widespread attention. The fight to
have this conviction set aside was taken
up by Christian Scientists all over the
country. At the hearing before the Su-
preme court there we're present number
of prominent followers of the doctrine.
There would have been more satisfac-
ton had the matter not been settled on
technicality. Prosecutor Atkinson has
three alternatives at his disposal He can
carry the matter to the Court of Errors
and Appeals, retry the defendants or let
the case drop. He has not decided on
what action he will take.
The defence before the Supreme court
was conducted by Frank S. Katzenbach,
Jr., of Trenton, who declared that the
aim of the prosecution seemed to be to
array the doctors of medicine against the
Christian Scientists. He declared the case
was one in which prejudice and not JUS
tice had prevailed.