§ 19. Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that in the case of Thomas Madden, remanded to the Quarter Sessions on a charge of criminal assault on a child, and on which the Crown entered a nolle prosequi, three doctors, including a specialist, attended Court but were not asked a question, either publicly or privately; whether he is aware that there was only a difference of four months in the age of this child and of the child in another similar case where the prisoner was tried and convicted; and whether he will state why it was decided not to proceed with the case because the medical evidence would not justify that course when it was not known what the medical evidence was?
§ Mr. BIRRELLI am informed that two doctors made depositions in the Police Court as to the result of their examination of the child. The prison doctor also examined the prisoner and attended the Court and was interviewed by the Crown Counsel, and in consequence of what he stated it was decided not to proceed with the prosecution. According to the sworn evidence of the parents the age of the child alleged to have been assaulted by Madden was six years and eleven months, and the age of the other child eight and a half years. As I have already stated, in the case of the younger child there was no corroboration of her statement, whereas in the other case there was most conclusive proof of the guilt of the prisoner.