PUNISHING A SCHOOL-CHILD

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume L, Issue 7960, 12 April 1922, Page 4

PUNISHING A SCHOOL-CHILD

TEACHER CHARGED WITH ASSAULT. A case that created considerable interest was heard before Mr W. G. K. Kenrick, S.M., at the last sitting of the Magistrate's Court at Te Puke, when Harold Honnor, ‘■riiooh teacher at the Upper Papamca School was charged on the information of Arthur Ernest Garrett a farmer, with having assaulted tire, latter's son, a schoolboy, aged 13 years. Mr Hodge appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Cooney for defendant .

Dr McFarlane gave evidence that on March 8 he had examined the

lad in question and found blue marks over the right shoulder and (high, that might have been caused by a strap. The punishment must havif been severe.

('has, Arthur Garrett gave evidence as to .having been punished bv the teacher for having failed to icad a sum. He admitted under cross-examination that he had helped .with. the milking at home after being strapped. Arthur Ernest Garrett said his son had always been delicate. He saw him after being strapped, and his . shoulder was purple. Robert Gilmore, a member of the school committee, deposed that he had examined .young Garretts shoulder. There was a dark blue mark on it 5 or 6 inches square. He considered the treatment brutal, Lind had kept his; childVen away from the school since the occurrence. There was a desire on the part of some settlers to get rid of Honnor., He regarded him as a good teacher, bn( objected to his treatment of children.

Other witnesses gave evidence for the prosecution. The defendant gave evidence that he had trouble with, parents over the attendance of children. The lad he had punished had been asked to do an exercise, but was stubborn and had refused. After being punished he did it correctly. Witness gave him five strokes while sitting and six when standing up. He did not intend to hit him so hard.

Mr Hodge asked if the last strok es were meant as a reward.

Mr Cooney, for the defence, quot : ed the case Hansen v. Cole, to show that in determining whether a punishment administered by a teacher was reasonable allowance should be made by way of protecting him in the exercise of his discretion, and if there was a reasonable doubt as to whether the punishment was excessive, he should be given the benefit of that doubt. A master’s own words must have great weight when the question arose as to whether a pupil’s failure to do his work arose from stubbornness or other conduct deserving correction.

His Worship, in giving judgment, said that notwithstanding there was an apparent desire on the part of settlers to get rid of the teacher, the evidence had been given fairly. The punishment inflicted, was, he considered, severe, but it had not been shown to be excessive. The information would be dismissed, each side to pay their own costs.