CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOLS.

Evening Star, Issue 12523, 6 June 1905, Page 8

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOLS.

[Special *to the Sjae.] CHRISTCHURCH, Jurife 6. - a case heard hero vesteiday in which Walter Hayden, of' Prebbleton, claimed £lO damages from A. Bramley, master.of the Prebbleton School, in conse(lijence of the latter having unreasonably inflicted corporal punishment upon a daughter of the plaintiff, evidence was given that the girl had been sent to the school on the understanding that she was not to be subject to corporal punishment; as her Health would not permit of it The defendant had given her one stroke with the ‘trap because ■she had seven spelling, mistakes out of fourteen words. Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., said it was. a moot point entirely as to whether corporal punishmentwas in anv way necessary to the conduct of schools, and individual people held different opinions. He had no sentiment about the matter, and had himself advised parents that the only course open to them was to inflict corporal punishment; but it was.an entirely different matter whether, in the earning out of the school routine, it was necessary to inflict corporal punishment. Tt seemed to ‘him an utter absurdity for a teacher to come to the court and say that ho could only teach spelling by the strap, and that was practically what the defendant stated. However, h- a supposed that each teacher would have his own particular views on 'the way of imparting instmet'on, and anything he said would not affect the matter.- ,Tn other cases the point to ”e decided was whether the punishment inflicted was excessive, but in the present case the question was whether the schoolmaster was justified in inflicting corporal jranishment at ail, and he had no hesitation in saving that he was not instilled. If the defendant could not—and he might to have known if he ■ knew his business—if he cool 1 not cond”ct the school properly without inflicting corporal punishment. he had no right to taj-e the child, should have laid th“ matter be f ore. the School Committee, and, if necessary, before the Fducat'on Board, with the view of gettiug his position fairlv defined. The f ather of the child was fully justified, in accordance with th° evidence, in protecting what he couVidered to be the best iuterest-s of his child. He cl : d rot attempt to defend the plaintiffs action in regard to his general conduct or depojtment towards the schoolmaster, for that had nothing to do . with the matter he had to decide, which was whether the schoolmaster was justified in inflicting corporal 'umishmenL slight, as it was. upder the circumstances In his opinion the schoolmaster was rot. and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to recover. He would give judgment for 40s, with costs. “The master’s proper course,” added Fis Wor-

“wns to errml the child, and not to inflict corporal punishment.”