DISCIPLINE VERSUS GAIETY

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 76, 1 April 1899, Page 1 (Supplement)

DISCIPLINE VERSUS GAIETY

POWERS OF A SCHOOLMASTER.

A-stockbroker, Mr Hollebone. sued in the Lord Chief Justice's Court for alleged breach of contract the proprietor of Wellimgore Hall School.an establishment near Lincoln for the education and training of gentlemen's sons. Part of the work of the school consisted of'firming and other outdoor pursuits requisite for colonial life. The plaintiff in September, 1897, sent his son, who was about seventeen years of age, to the school, paying £120 a year, or at the rate .of £40 a term. Tlhe fees were payable in advance at each term. On one occasion the plaintiff- desired leave of absence for two or threo days for his son to attend a ball, at which a young lady, a relative of the1 family, was to come out,' but the d/efonflant refused to grant the leave 4-on the ground that it was against the rules of the school and would interfere with its discipline. The plaintiff sent a/peremptory order by telegram'that the son: must come, and he accordingly left, the defendant intimating at the time that he was sorry he would not be'able toireturn.'

The plaintiff now sued for breach of contract and the return of the fees paid in advance. The defence was that, according to the rules of the school,, which came to the knowledge of. the plaintiff a .boy was not permitted to leave during the term except in cases, of urgency; that this rule was necessary for the proper discipline of the school; and that the defendant as master was the sole judge whether leave should be given or not.

;It appeared that the plaintiff's son held the position of 'first prefect and alao of head stable lad, and the defendant said that if he had given him leave of ab-. scence as requested it would have seriously, interfered with the daily- routine and discipline. . ' •■

The Lord Chief Justice said the real question, was whether the defendant had been guilty Of a breach of contract in refusing, to take the boy back. A master must have full control over his school, and though there were occasions—such as the illness or death of a relative—when to refuse leave of absence would be unreasonable, there were other times where he might not unreasonably think the reasons given were not sufficient.

The jury, withotu leaving the box, found a verdict for defendant.

His Lordship said he quite agreed with the verdict. The case involved no imputations on either side and only raised a question as to which party was in the circumstances right. . , , •