SCHOOL TEACHER AND PUPIL.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 201, 19 May 1908, Page 4

SCHOOL TEACHER AND PUPIL.

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AND ~ DISCIPLINE. '. AN INTERESTING JUDGMENT. .\ .Reserved judgment was . given by- Mr. W: G. Biddcll, S.M., yesterday in the' caso ' of' (J. J laynes v. Kdwin Howe. Defendant 'is a. teacher of wood-carving at the Wellington Technical. School,; and Haynes; a pupil' in defendant's class, about 14 years of • age. The _ facts were not in'dispute. Tho alleged assault Consisted of four strokes with a cane, administered by defendant for breaches of discipline on. the part of Haynes. The result, according to Dr. Begg/tho Magistrate said, was severe bruising and temporary inconvenience. There wejo no permanent injuries, llis Worship did not think there was any doubt about, defendant's a'utherity. to administer- corporal punishment to pupila-in ordor to preserve discipline in his class. The ordinary authority to administer corporal punishment extended, not to the hfcad feather, only, hut to responsible teachers who have charge of classes. A teacher of a class had tho ordinary means of preserving discipline, and as between the parent and .tho child and the teacher it was enough for the teacher-to be. ablo to saj', "The punishment which I administered Was moderate; it was not dictated by 'any bad motive,, and it',was such as is usual-in the school, arid such as the parents of tho child might expect tho. child would reccivo if it did. wrong." -In tho present. case' tho boy was in good health when the punishment was adriiiriistcred, and.tho number of strokes was. not excessive l -though, according to tho niedidal evidence, it was severe. The'facts showed'that Haynes deserved some punishment, . .but it was ,questionable if . he would received.so. niuch if' defendant had at, onco checked his initial breach of discipline instead of attempting 40. delegato his power of correction to another , and smaller , pupil. Defendant certainly erred in' this matter, and his error seemed to the' Cotirt to havo given. Hayi?es' an; opportunity "of trying to dicta.te .to .defendant where or how lie should bo. punished. His challenge was".'..in.. open class, and defendant,properly considered it riecessiryi. to assert his. authority.. To maintain disc'iplino was a matter. of first importance in every, class or school. Without, it i. great part of tho teacher's work was rendered valueless, and the pupil's effipiehey suffered accordingly. After quoting authorities',. His Worship continued:—"ln determining what is a reasonable punishinont. various considerations must be regarded, the nature of the offence, ,the apparent motive and disposition of the offender,' the influence of his examplo and conduct upon others, and tho sex, ago, size and strength of tho pupil to be punished! On account of the difference of opinion, and the difficulty which oxists in determining what is rdasouable punishment, and the advantage which tho master has by being, on ;the- spot-to know all the circumstances; the jmanner, look, tone, gesture, and language !of tho offender, and thus to form a correct ;opinion as to the necessity and extent of the (punishment, considerable allowance should :bo made to the teacher by wav of protecting him in the exercise of h!s discretion. : Hence tho teacher is not to be hold liable ■on the groun dof excess of punishment, unless tho punishment is clearly'excessive and would be so hold in the general judgment of roasonable men. If the punishment is clearly, excessive, then the master is liable : for such excess, though lie acted from prosper motives ill inflicting tho punishinont, and ;.in his own judgment considered it necessary and not-excessive ; but if there is any reasonable doiibt here, the master should have the 'befiofit 'of the doubt. ' -Applying tlieso principles, and looking at tho wholo of the cir- I cumstances, I think defendant had sufficient ■ causo-to inflict some punishment' on Haynes, : but that it would not have been quite so severe if ho had. not at first attempted to delegate his power of correction to another : pupil. As a rosult, there was some excess in -the punishment .inflicted,' amounting to an assault,.but;npt sufficient to warrant a con- 1 victipn being entered against defendant, lip ' liriusl, however, pay tlio costs.of the nrosecu- . tipn (£2 i.2s'.)."i 'r ; - .

"Mr. Wilford appeared for plaintiff, and Mr •Myers for defendant., ;