WITHIN HIS RIGHTS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 219, 16 September 1930, Page 5

WITHIN HIS RIGHTS.

SCHOOLGIRLS SEARCHED.

SUIT AGAINST HEADMASTER.

PUPIL'S ACTION FAILS,

(By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.)

NEW PLYMOUTH, Monday,

Tlie cases which arose out of the searching of. some scholars at the Stratford Technical High School in connection ■with the theft of money from the cloakroom of the school, formed the basis of a reserved judgment of Mr. 11. W. Tate, S.M., delivered at the Stratford Magistrate's Court to-day. It will be recalled,that three girls fell under the suspicion of the headmaster, and after questioning them he had them searched by one of the mistresses. All the girls were completely exonerated, but one of them, Velma Cuff, through her father, brought an action against the headmaster for damages for defamation, and against the headmaster and mistress for damages for assault, the assault alleged being the search of plaintiff by Miss Knight, by order of the headmaster, Amess. .. In regard to the action for alleged defamation, the magistral, in giving judgment, said plaintifi aneged that thte headmaster defamed her by saying to Miss Knight, in the presence of the ther two girls, "These girls are under suspicion of having stolen money from the cloakroom; search them thoroughly," meaning that she was guilty of the crime of theft. "I cannot find it proved that he used those words," said Mr. Tate. "On the words alleged, if actually proved, or on the words he did in fact use/this action will not lie without proof of special damage. No Definite Theft Charge. "Slander is actionable without proof of special damage in the case' of imputation that plaintiff has comin'tted a criminal offence, but words whic'i do not amount to a definite charge of a crime, but only impute mere suspicion or opinion that plaintiff has committed a crime, are not actionable without proof of special damage. In this case there is no definite change of theft, and no proof of special damage, and plaintiff's action must fail. "In regard to the allegation of assault by searching, the action of plaintiff in making no protest and in expressing no unwillingness, but, on the other hand, offering her coat and then herself to Miss Knight's examination, was consent to search, though words of consent were not expressly used. Plaintiff's common sense detected the true position, that the headmaster had rights in the matter, and she submitted' with good grace to a course which she did not like. She acted wisely, for even if she had protested the headmaster could still have had her searched, for he was in loco parentis. "The authority of a schoolmaster is, while it exists, the same as that of a parent. A parent, when he leaves his child with a schoolmaster, delegates to him all his own authority so far as it is necessary for the welfare of the child. Clearing the Innocent. "This action must fail for two reasons. Firstly, because the search complained of was by consent, and, secondly, because the headmaster was within his rights in having the search made. "The actions fail on legal grounds, but I think I should say something further. I do not think that a schoolmaster fulfils his duty who, invested with the delegated authority of parents, teaches his pupils subjects in the syllabus and takes, no interest in .their moral welfare. When a theft occurs in a school a "circumstance arises demanding an investigation. not only for the correction of the erring child, but for the exculpation of the innocent. "Occurrences of theft in a school, if left uninvestigated, would tend to destroy the moral of the school, and to blunt the moral .perception of both the innocent and the guilty. Prompt action is necessary. This headmaster eliminated possible suspects down to three, and, if he had not cleared up the matter as far as he could, he would have been unjust to those three." Judgment was entered for defendant.