£5000 DAMAGES.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 74, 29 March 1938, Page 14

£5000 DAMAGES.

" HISTORY IS MADE."

VERDICT AGAINST BOY. TEACHER WINS HIS CASE. (From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, March 25. A Supreme Court jury, according to our legal experts—"made history" last week when they gave a verdict for £.">OOO damages against a nine year-old schoolboy. The ease certainly presents pome interesting feature*. Last year Angus Cameron brought an action against a teacher. Edward Muhs, for indecently assaulting his son. Ewon. aged nine. Mr. Cameron depended wholly on what his little buy had told him. ami he admitted that when he had applied to the police in the matter they informed him that they could not act. unless Muhs made a ifcssion. or some corroborative evidence could be produced to support the boy's statement. Not Consistent. Til spite of this, the father laid tin' charge against .Muhs at the Quarter Sessions, and the teacher was acquitted. Evidence was submitted to the jury, which convinced them that the boy's j statements were "not consistent with facts." The boy asserted that the alleged offence was committed in a garage, and the jury was satisfied that the boy had not been there at the time in question Muhs naturally felt that his reputation, both personal anil professional. had snll'cred severely, and he brought suit, for damages' against both father and son. Summing up. Mr. Justice Oweif made miiihi highly illuminating remarks on the case and its hearings. He directed the jury to return a verdict for Mr. Cameron, the father, on the ground that there was no evidence to suggest malice on his part, or to show that he knew that his son was lying when the boy declared that the teacher had interfered with him. No Malicious Intention. Tn his Honor's opinion, "the jury could not possibly say that the boy's statement to his father was so incredible in its contents, and in the way in which it was told, that his father ought to have disbelieved it." It was true that if the father had investigated the box's statement about the lock on the garage door —there was no lock —or had questioned Muhs himself, he might have changed his mind, lint, neither his failure to take such steps, nor his resolve to lay the charge in spite of the refusal of Cue police to do so. could be said to indicate '•malicious intention'' in any reprehensible sense. As to the boy. the verdict given last year by the jury had indicated clearly "enough that he must have been actuated by deliberate malice to bring such a charge against his teacher without i just ideation. The jury might possibly feci that the position was complicated |by the fact that the boy is a minor. 1 onlv nine years old: and here his Honor I elucidated'the essential features of the I law on this point, with remarkable 1 clarity. j "That defendant is a small boy." he said, "is not material: and the fact that a verdict given against him may never be r vcrcd is not material either. i Plaintiff is entitled to a verdict if he ! proves his case, regardless of whether the boy is able to pay or not." ! Tahiti'.: all this into account, the jnrv ; found for Muhs against the boy for £.".000. the full amount claimed. Of course, there will be an anneal to the Full Court against this decision, which lis said to be "the largest verdict ever given again-t an infant in this State."' On 1 the assuming that the verdict is upheld. 1 it will be legallv enforceable against I the boy for •_'•"> years. If the plaintiff I were satisfied to receive the basic wage : - C! IS/ weekly from the defendant, it. j would take the hnv over 24 Years to [ pay off the i'oOOO damages, starting after he had become an adult employee.

Inder the circumstances. one may nj.'ivc fully with •"Truth'' that young Eweu CaiiiiTnii "faces a most unenviable future."'