ABSENT FROM SCHOOL

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 25, 29 July 1933, Page 22

ABSENT FROM SCHOOL

GIRL'S FATHER CHARGED

A. second prosecution arising out of a parent's, failure to send a child lo school over a period from July. 7 to July 21 in order that she. might travel with the Frank Neil Pantomime Company, was heard in the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon; the charge being against Alfred John Chandler.

After he had heard the evidence, (he Magistrate (Mi-.. -~W. •F. Stilwell) convicted and fined the defendant the minimum .fine of 2s for every -week the child was absent, making the total -tine (is. Mr. G.. 'Mellish. appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Mr. E. S. "Hylton, 'secretary of the Education Board, said that the defendant applied, for a certificate of exemption for his. daughter in order that she might travel -with the Frank Neil Pantomime Company, but the board refused to grant one. Despite this, however, the defendant took the girl away from school. The defendant went to the headmaster of the school and asked for permission to take the girl away, but the headmaster referred him to the board, which refused to', grant an'exemption. "The Act 'requires that every child between the' ages' of seven .and fourteen shall attend school every half-day the school is open,"' said .Mi: Hylton. Giving evidence, the defendant said that his daughter, who was eleven years and nine months old, was in the sixth standard, and up to the time she went away with the. pantomime company she had regularly attended school. His daughter intended to take up dancing as a profession, and he regarded the tour with the company as a good opportunity for her to improve.her knowledge of dancing. Mr. Hylton had told him that the Education Board would'not grant an exemption, and warned him that if he took the girl away from school he would be liable to prosecution. The defendant said lie explained the position to the manager of the company,'who told him not to worry as the company would make the necessary arrangements. •Mr. Mellish said that there might have been-a technical breach, but the defendant ! had made an honest endeavour to comply with the Act. The Magistrate said he was convinced the defendant' knew what the position •was. "It appears to me it was indicated to the defendant.that he was not within his right in taking the child away," he said. ■ ■