ASSAULT ON TEACHER

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 300, 13 September 1921, Page 6

ASSAULT ON TEACHER

APPEAL IN EAST TARATAHI CASE MAGISTRATE’S DECISION UPHELD By Telegraph—Special Correspondent. Masterton, September 12. Sitting in Banco to-night, His Honour Mr. Justice Salmond heard the appeal of Albert I’ercy Sou thy, farm manager, of East Taratahi, and his wife, and Stanley Gordon Green, labourer, of East Taratahi, and his wife, against the decision of a Magistrate that they had assaulted Catherine Richard Phillips, formerly school teacher at East Taratahi. The claim in the Lower Court was for .£2OO general damages, but the Magistrate had awarded -266 4s. Mr. W. Noble appeared for the appellants, and Mr. M. Myers, with him Mr. R. R. Burridge, for the respondent. The evidence given in tho Magistrate’s Court woe < admitted, and argument was heard as to the merits of the case. Case for Appellants.

Mr. Noble said that the appellants were parents of children attending the school at Taratahi where Miss Phillips was teacher. There were two entirely different stories of the assault alleged to have taken place at the school. That of the appellants was that Mrs. Green had occasion to interview Miss Phillips about her treatment of the school children. On her way to respondent’s house Mrs. Green was joined by Mrs. Southy, who was on the same errand. When they arrived at the house. Miss Phillips ordered them away, and as they were making their''departure Miss Phillips attempted to strike tjiem with a broom. It was necessary, as the Magistrate had stated in his judgment, to closely examine the evidence. If they compared the evidence of respondent that of the other witnesses, they found that respondent was an abnormal person. Her evidence could not be taken against the evidence of other witnesses who were known throughout the district aa eminently respectable and reliable. Dr. Cowie had stated in evidence after his examination of respondent that she was Abnormal and of an excitable nature; In support of his contention counsel said that a ' school committee meeting was held shortly after tho assault, when respondent attempted bo gain admittance, but was told that she was not wanted. Even then and without being invited, she attempted to speak. The evidence also showed that after the trouble Miss Phillips went to the Education Department in Wellington, where she was advised to go to the police. This she did not do because she would have thus precluded the possibility of getting damages against the appellants. Mr. G. E. Allen, a successful sheepfarmer of Dbminion reputation, was chairman of the school committee. He had eaid that on one occasion he received a telephone message from the respondent, who asked him to ring for thfe police at Carterton, ten miles away. Counsel said that surely this and other instances he had quoted tended to show that, the respondent was abnormally excitable, and therefore unreliable as a witness.

His Honour: How do you account for the bruises on respondent and injuries to her? Mr. Noble: We say that there was a struggle for the broom, in which respondent was knocked against a wall several times. Tho Other Side. Mr. Myers contended that the Magistrate’s decision was in accordance with the evidence. The onus was on the appellants to show that it was wrong. The respondent's case was much stronger than had been suggested. There was not only the evidence of the injuries respondent had suffered, but also that of Miss Gray, who actually saw a bruise on her shoulder. There was also the evidence of Dr. Cowie. It was not to be wondered at that she was suffering from nervous excitement when she saw the doctor, considering what she had gone through. The doctor had found on her injuries which could only have been inflicted by. a severe pummelling. That was not all, .however. What wore these people doing at the teacher’s house at all? They had sworn that it was mere chance. The Magistrate had found that this was not true. The evidence of the appellants themselves showed that the visit was premeditated for some time previous to the assault. There had been a movement among the par-’ ents to get Miss Phillips removed from the school. Before Miss Phillips went to the school the discipline had been rather lax, and parents resented the stricter control of respondent. The point was that'Mrs. Southy was having trouble with the teacher about a girl, yet when, Mrs. Southy went to see the teacher not one word was said about the girl. Mr. Noble had referred to the similarity of the evidence of all the appellants. 'This was not in the least surprising, as they had had ample opportunity to discuss the evidence they were to give. The Magistrate in his finding had said that he was satisfied that appellants had visited respondent by arrangement ; that was a kind way of saying that he did not 'believe the appellants’ statements.

Mr. Noble: My friend has very carefully avoided'referring to the discrepancies between the respondent’s statements and those of other witnesses. Why should such a man as Mr. Allen, want to tell an untruth? Decision Upheld, "In this i case it is impossible'for me to overrule the decision of the Magistrate,” said His Honour in delivering judgment. “It has been contended by Mr. Noble that there are inconsistencies in the respondent’s evidence, but this does not exist further than contradictions of hearsay evidence. It 'is highly probable '|hat Miss Phillips has exaggerated as to the length and vigour of the assault, but this is not important. The case might have been more difficult if the defence had been that appellants had struck the teacher in self-defence after she had attacked them with the broom. I nm quite sure that the. visit to the teacher’s residence was prearranged. The appeal -will be dismissed, With £lO 10s. costs in favour of respondent.”