FEES AT PRIVATE SCHOOLS.

Press, Volume L, Issue 8477, 8 May 1893, Page 6

FEES AT PRIVATE SCHOOLS.

At the Resident Magistrate's Court, Christchurch, on Saturday, Mr Eeetham, R.M., gave judgment as follows in the case of Bowen v Rutherford, which had been heard on April 16th, and in which the plaintiff claimed £31 153 for one quarter's school fees for defendant's daughter, who had been removed from plaintiffs school without notice:—" I am at opinion that the plaintiff cannot recover. The case of Simeon v Watsoa (46 Law Journal, C.P., pV679) is in point, This case follows Boart v Firtjf (38 Law Journal, C.P., 'which shows that where the contract is by tho father, and he is unable to perform it by reason of the illness of the son, he is excused from the performance. In Simeon v Watson, a father sent his son to school on the terms that whe-.i he removed him from the school he would either give the master a term's notice or its' equivalent in money. In an action against the father for removing his son without giving such notice, .or paying au equivalent in money, it was held a good defence to such action that 'the removal was only temporary, or whilst the son was unable from illness to return to the school. There is nothing in thie case to show that the removal was permanent, or that the girl might not have retu-ned to the school during the current term. At the final interview between Mrs Bowen and Mrs Rutherford, when the plaintiff stated that she should press her claim, Mrs Rutherford stated that in that case the girl had better stay. She told the girl so when she came in with her school books. The girl then left her books at the school. It is true she had not returned to the school when the claim was made on November 23rd, but, as I understand it, the term had nut taeu expired, and the girl was clearly incapacitated from illness at that time. No distinct intimation was, so for as I can see ever made by the defendant that his daughter was to be permanently removed from the school. On the authority of tiie cases quoted, I think' that the illness of the girl is a defence to the action. - It ia to be regretted that the defendant did not taka an early opportunity to iutiinate plainly to the plaintiff what his intentions were as regards the withdrawal of the girl from the school. Had he done so this action might have been avoided. Under .these circumstances, no costs will be allowed. ,. Judgment wus entered up for defendant without costs. Mr Joynt (for Mr Fereday) was for plaintiff, and Mr Kippenberger for defendant.