Thursday, November 16, 1905
Some neighbours of Harry Scace are, we understand, disposed to find fault with County Constable William Prior because his name appears as the complainant in the case of R. v. Scace. This is not right. As County Crown Attorney W. J. L. McKay explained at the trial before Police Magistrate George Rutherford last week, Mr. Prior was acting under instructions from the authorities in laying the complaint. Being ordered to lay the complaint, his official position allowed him no choice in the matter. Criticism of his act is, therefore, entirely out of place.
The action in the Scace case, in which he stands accused in the death of his daughter Adeline, is taken under section 210 of the Criminal Code, which reads as follows: “Everyone who as a parent, guardian or head of a family is under legal duty to provide necessaries for any child under the age of 16 years is criminally responsible for omitting, without lawful excuse, to do so while such child remains a member of his or her household, whether such child is helpless or not, if the death of such child is cause or if his life is endangered, or his health is or is likely to be permanently injured, by such omission.” The officers and directors of the Melancthon Agricultural Society met Thursday last to wind up the affairs of the society for the year. The reports showed the surplus from this year’s fair to be over $250, and as a result the society has now a balance to the good in the treasury of over $600.