COUNTRY SCHOOL TROUBLE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 136, 9 June 1911, Page 2

COUNTRY SCHOOL TROUBLE.

TEACHER V. SCHOOL COMMITTEE. AN ACTION FOR LIBEL. The action in which William Masson, school teacher, seeks to recover from William Richardson, chairman of the Maungatapere School Committee, the sum of £501 damages for alleged libel, was continued at the Auckland Supreme Court yesterday afternoon before Mr. Justice Edwards and a jury of twelve. Mr. J. R. Reed -(instructed- by Mr. Hall Skelton), appeared for plaintiff-and Messrs. F. Earl E. C. Blomfield for defendant. Under further cross-examination defendant stated that Miss Horneyman, assistant teacher, commenced to make complaints against Masson in July last, but denied that he had been in frequent communication with her on school matters. He admitted taking a petition round the district getting signatures for the removal :of Masson, but denied procuring a letter from Miss Horneyman, in which Bhe stated her ill-health was due to the head teacher's insulting behaviour, and similarly denied making representations to that effect in any form. When confronted with a copy of the petition as sent to the Education Board deiendant hesitatingly replied that he did not recollect the contents being the same as the one he wrote and took round, and asked to see the original. When the original was produced by the secretary of the. Education Board, the defendant said he remembered the petition but did not compose it, and had not taken it round very much. It was another petition he had taken round, and on being questioned admitted that it was a document'by which residents agreed to keep their children away from school. Asked as to where he got information relative-to alleged falsification of the register, the -witness did not recollect, but denied that details were furnished, by MiS3 Horneyman, who, however, had told him of remarks made by Masson to her concerning the- school committee and the chairman. - Defendant said the object of the letter to the Board 'was. to get Masson Temoved from the Maungatapere school. After the removal he had no further concern, but admitted writing to the secretary of the (Education Board aiter Masson had left leierring to his behaviour in leaving, and ending up with the remark: "You will be having .more dealings with Mr. Masson and itJsjwelljtq know what he is." Questioned on some of the contents of the letter defendant admitted that improper motives were imputed, such as theft of brackets, obtaining money by false pretences,, getting possession of books from the Victoria League, and taking away a lamp for which he had not paid without being threatened. Your intention in writing that letter was to "show Masson up" and advise the Board he was not honest? —It was to let the Board know not to put business in Masson's hands. You think he is not honest?—l would be careful in any dealings with him.

As to the treatment of teachers appointed, to Maungatapere since Masson left defendant admitted telegraphing to one selected in these terms: "Parents and this ; committee unanimously 'decide your appointment not acceptable. What do ydii intend./doing?—Richardson, chairman."

His Honor: There is a bit of autocracy up there. Correspondence between the Board and the committee on the subject of the appointment was read, and it was shown that though the Board did not iniiist ou tho selection, intimated that the committee's ; choice- (Mrs. Askew) could not be regarded as a permanent appointment. The .committee telegraphed -. "We unanimously demand Mrs. Askow's appointment." Witness denied that he sent the telegram and, pressed for an explanation said Mrs. Aslcew's. husband had sent the telegram. His Honor: And signed your name to it?— Yes.

His HonoT: That is a very Berioua' charge to make against any person. Defendant also admitted the committee opposed "Mrs:" Goss' -appointment, and wrote in the course of/a letter of protest: "We have selected Mrs. Askew." Mrs. Goss, however, was appointed, and she jvas happy in her position. Defendant admitted that though no definite arrangement had been made it was understood other members of the committee would give pecuniary assistance in the defence of the action. Mr. Reedj.Tney ; will, share equally in the costs and the damages'?—lit the costs, IbUt 'we don't expect damages. .(Laughter.) , '' Defendant also admitted writing to the Education Board on June 24th of last year, complaining that Masson had referred to him as " a big hulking pig," and' to the previous chairman as "Kerr by name and a 'cur* by nature." The letter suggested that the sooner the headteacher left the district the better. it would be, as tar and feathers had been mentioned. (Laughter.)

His Honor (laughing): Who was to get the tar and. feathers?— The plaintiff. j His Honor: You must he an excitable , lot! Mti Reed: Did you or the committee intend to do the tarring and feathering? —Tho people were talking about it. :Who were talking about it?—l heard it mentioned. ........ --Jsy whom? —I don't know. It wasn't mentioned to mc. • His- Honort J)on't you understand that if some "one spoke to yon about it, it must-have been mentioned to you? Pressed on the matter defendant said [Albert Edge (an employee) first mentioned it to him, and the suggestion, he thought; had come, from Walter Cutforth. It' was during a drive to Whangar'ei "that Miss Horneyman told him Masson had said he was "a big hulking pig." His Honor: Why didn't you tell her not to repeat suoh silly nonsense?— She asked mc if she should disclose at the Board inquiry what the head-teacher had been saying about the people. I told her she-should; His Honor: It was vtoy bad advice'; very bad indeed. If people repeated all that was said in the highways and by-wa-va society would bo impossible. The defendant was in the witness-box till 1 o'clock, and after the adjournment Elsie -.May Horneyman,, formerly assistant at Maungatapere School, and now at Aoroa, commenced her evidence. She said she bad become aware of the friction over the tennis court from remarks made by the head teacher and from the family with whom she was boarding. After the June vacation, the head teacher asfced her what attitude she was taking in connection with the trouble. She replied that she refused to associate herself .with the dispute, and lie said.it was a wrong.attitude to take, lis an assistant should uphold the head teacher in all things, remarking that an assistant would always get a good report for doing that. After the conversa-

tion, witness said the head teacher had changed towards her, and belittled and insulted her before the pupils and in private. It got_§p bad that her nerves were upset, and she was unable to continue her duties, and got leave of absence from the Board for five weeks. She also told the chairman that in consequence of the head teacher's behaviour she would resign her position. All the time she was on duty the defendant had not disturbed the school, nor had he interfered with the discipline. Once Mr. Kichardson visited the school with a message concerning the death of the late king. The dismissal of the school was interrupted by the chairman, and afterwards he and the head teacher had an argument, the latter contending that too much loyalty was all nonsense. (Proceeding.)