ALLEGED ASSAULT BY TEACHER

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 56, 29 November 1929, Page 7

ALLEGED ASSAULT BY TEACHER

PETONE WEST SCHOOL CASE COURT RESERVES DECISION The hearing was concluded before Mr. T. B. McNeil, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday of the case in which the father of Roy Furniss, a pupil of the Petone West School, claimed £25 damages from J. C. Burns, headmaster of the school, for alleged assault on his child. The case, which was heard at Petone last week, was removed to Wellington for legal argument, which was heard yesterday. v Mr. B. Egley, who appeared for the plaintiff, said the crux of his case was that the punishment was neither moderate nor reasonable. He knew it was reasonable to believe a schoolmaster in preference to a pupil, other things being equal, but in this particular case there was a marked discrepancy between the pupil’s statements and the headmaster’s story. There was the evidence to be considered of three independent people, Senior-Sergeant McKelvey, Dr. Bakewell and Miss Kirk, of the Society for the Protection of Women and Children, all of whom had sworn that there were ten raised weals on the boy’s forearms. • On the other hand, the headmaster had maintained that at no time had he touched the boy’s forearms with the cane. Mr. Burns had said that he did not know how the marks came to be on the boy’s arms. It was also maintained by Mr. Burns that he remained cool, calm and collected; that he at no time lost his temper; and that he gave the boy two lots of three cuts each on the buttocks. That was the reasoned, considered statement of a schoolmaster of many years’ standing. Counsel submitted that the inference was that Mr. Burns must have lost his temper; that he must have been in a state of rage and did not know that he struck the boy on the forearms. He was not for a moment suggesting that Mr. Burns had gone into the witness-box ;a;d told untruths, but the only possible explanation seemed to be that he lost his temper when punishing the boy and did not know what he was doing.

Concerning the incident which led to Furniss being sent to the headmaster by the class teacher, Miss Allan, Mr. Egley submitted that the boy had not been asked for an explanation of his conduct, which the boy alleged was start-, ed by another boy. Furniss was suffering from a sense of injustice, and he felt in his boyish way that he should resist punishment. The boy had been misjudged, and smarting from a sense of injustice, had refused to hold out his hand.

Boy’s Evidence Criticised. Appearing for the headmaster, Mr. W. P. Boilings submitted that a schoolmaster had a discretionary power as to what punishment should be inflicted, what form the punishment should take, and to what extent it should be administered. Another point was that so far as the circumstances leading up to the punishment were concerned more weight must be given to the master’s version of the circumstances, and if there was any reasonable doubt the headmaster should get the benefit of that doubt. Regarding the marks on the boy Furniss, it was a well-known fact that some children bruised more readily than others. The fact that there were weals on the boy’s arms, he submitted, should not convince the Court that the punishment was unreasonable. The important point was how did the marks get there? There was the evidence of the headmaster and

the boy himself. As far as the boy was concerned, he submitted that he gave his evidence far too well; he had shown that he was an accomplished liar. The boy had either been unwilling or unable to appreciate the distinction between truth and falsehoods. Mr. Rollings held that no schoolmaster would accuse a boy of using bad language unless it had actually been used. Perhaps the most extraordinary allegation of the lot was that Mr. Burns threw the boy on the floor and put his knee on the boy’s chest. Counsel argued that the boy’s evidence was totally unreliable as to what took place. On another aspect of the case there was the evidence of Mr. Tunnicliffe, a teacher at the school, who said that when he saw Mr. Burns after the incident he was calm and collected. The Boy’s Conduct. Mr. Rollings submitted that there was no evidence as to how toe marks got on the boy’s arms, and that on placing the obvious mixture of truth and falsehoods made by the boy alongside the headmaster’s story the Court would come to the following conclusions: That the boy s conduct was on the whole bad; that the boy’s conduct was of the worst nature schoolmasters had to deal with—rebellion against discipline; that the immediate cause of the punishment was an act of rebellion against discipline, accompanied by such language as no headmaster or anyone else in authority could tolerate for a moment; that the punishment deliberately inflicted by Mr. Burns was reasonable and not more than commensurate with the offence, serious as it was; and that the bruises and marks on the boy were caused either by .his own struggles or as a result of him slipping down in the corridor. The Magistrate said he would give a written decision, which would be delivered as soon as possible.