SEQUEL TO A CANING.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVIII, Issue 297, 22 December 1897, Page 5

SEQUEL TO A CANING.

HEADMASTER ELLIS CHARGED

WITH ASSAULT.

The case against Howard S. J. Ellis, headmaster ot Richmond' Road School, charged with assaulting Cecil Jones, aged 8 years, was resumed at -the Police Court this morning, before Mr T. Hutchison, S.M. Mr /Napier appeared for the prosecution and Messrs Cotter and McGregor for the defence.

The examination of the witnesses for the defence was proceeded with. Dr. Lewis deposed to having examined the boy Jones' skin, and finding that it was of a very irritable character. There was a small batch of eczema on one leg. The mere mark with the nail brought a red discoloration on the "skin, and he did not think the bruises which had been caused by the caning were an index of its severity, for the skin was more than iisually sensitive. Cross-examined : That did not imply that the boy felt more pain than other boys, but that the injuries would be greater for the same amount of punishment.

Dr. King, who was also recalled, stated that he had examined the boy's skin this morning,, and found that drawing his nail over the skin caused a distinct " blush "' over the part. He did not think the boy delicate, although he would not call him robust. Henry Jaftrey, pupil-teacher, described the second caning which Mr Ellis gave the boy Jones. The strokes were not severe, and the boy i?ave no indication of the punishment being a severe one. Miss Jane Lane, another of the teachers, said she had often? had to punish little Jones "in various ways." On one occasion she reported him to Mr Ellis for truancy, but the latter did not punish him. The last witness, Miss Florence Aitken, another of the Richmond Road teachers, also gave evidence as to the sensitiveness of certain of the children's skins.

In summing up, Mr Hutchison said the question in this case, as in all such cases, ■was whether the chastisement iniiicted by defendant Avas reasonable under the circumstances, or whether it was excessive. The defendant was a teacher appointed under the Education Act, and that Act permitted the teacher to correct a pupil, but it was a material circumstance that the Education Board had made regulations for the guidance of its teachers in the infliction of corporal punishment. These required that corporal punishment should be iniiicted sparingly, and left its infliction to the discretion of the headmaster. Neither the Act nor the regulations, however, prescribed the manner in which corporal punishment was to be inflicted, and it would seem that the master must use his own discretion in the matter. In the present case there were several material factors. The boy punished was jusG between eight and nine years of age. His appearance he (Mr Hutchison) thought was that of a delicate child, but Dr. King had said the boy was not delicate, though not robust. The punishment on the first occasion was one cut on the hands, and three or four on the thighs and hips, for being inattentive and restless, and afterwards disobedient. Later on he received four strokes on the body for inattentiveness. It was difficult to express an opinion on the point, but looking at the regulations it did seem to him that the punishment exceeded the offence. Something was made of the fact that the boy said the pain passed away very soon. He did not know whether that really was the case, for a little boy's memory might be rather short. As to the medical evidence that the bruises were not a precise measure of the force supplied, he doubted whether it was relevant, for it seemed to him that the punishment should be proportioned to the ability of the subject to stand it. It was quite clear that the marks indisputably showed that force of a very considerable amount was applied to the boy, and he thought the1 punishment was in excess of that which by law it was allowable to inflict. In arriving at this conclusion he did not for a moment impute to the master any. bad motives : in fact he found that the punishment was inflicted without any display of temper or pique. Taking all the circumstances into consideration he thought the defendant must be convicted of assault. The fine would be 20s with costs £6 4s.

Mr Cotter asked that the fine might be increased to £5 Is, so as to give the defendant an opportunity of getting a judgment in the Supreme Court. He could not appeal if the fine were only 20s. Mr Hutcheson : The defendant has the right to appeal from the judgment on a point of law. t Mr Cotter : There is no point of law here. It is upon the iacts that we wish to appeal. The question is an important one to all teachers, and they wish generally to get a judgment at the Supreme Court. They want a decision as to whether the punishment was reasonable or not, and whether evidence of persons who did not see the punishment at all is to be taken. His Worship said he would consider the question of an appeal.