FLOGGING ADMINISTERED.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 17 May 1927, Page 9

FLOGGING ADMINISTERED.

TEACHERS ACTION UPHELD

i DECISION IN MANAIA CASE. Judgement was delvered by Mr R. \V. Tate at the Eltham Magistrate’s Court in a case which was heard at the last sittings in Mauaia and which ] created considerable interest in the ; district. J In the course of the judgment the Magistrate said: — “The information was laid by John Douglas Rorrie charging James Nairn : headmaster of the Manaia State School, with assault upon his son j Malcolm Rorrie, a pupil of the school, ] the assault consisting of excessively ' chastising the said Malcolm Rorrie • with a strap on the 4th. May 1927. 1 “Section 85 of the Crimes Act 1908 enacts it is lawful for a schoolmaster ! to use force by way of correction to- • wards any pupil under his care provided that such force is reasonable under the circumstances. ‘‘Til© circumstances in this case were ' that the teacher of the small children . at the Manaia school appealed to the defendant to stop the big boys inter- , l’ering with the play of the small children and reported Hiclicock and Borrie for so doing. They should have been with the big boys and they knew it. When the classes assembled the two boys were called, up before the headmaster and were asked by him if they had been with \th© small children and if they did not know they should not have been there. Hitchcock admitted his fault and was given a final warning. Borrie adopted a defiant attitude and twice refused to answer. The headmaster pushed him over to the cupboard where the strap was kept and asked the question again and got no answer. The headmaster then took out the strap and flogged Borrie across the shoulders with four strokes. Still he would not answer. The headmaster took the boy to liis office sent for the key, intending to lock him in, asked hini tlib qustion again and he' answered. He took him to his classroom and -he answered the question again there. The boy went home and complained to liis father who went to the constable and at the constable’s office the boy was examined by Dr Davies. The boy returned to school for the afternoon session and according to his own account did his work (drawing) just as well as on other occasions. In that his teacher concurs. “This occurred on Wednesday, May 4, and it was between 12.30 and 1 p.m. on that day .that Dr. Davies examined the boy. He says he: found five marks of bruises as wide as a strap from six to four inches long. He considered the boy had had severe punishment. - On Friday, May 6, two days and six hours after the alleged assault, Dr. Sinclair examined the boy and found the marks of four strokes the width of the strap and varying from one to one and a half inches in length. They -were deep red, and 1 were, in liis opinion, sustained on the tightened skin of hunched shoulders. If the skin of the whole back had been loose, the marks would, in hi® Opinion, have faded in twenty-four hours. The marks on the loose skin had faded, reducing D'r. Davies’ four to: six inches to. hi® one to one and a half inches. He said the marks were skin deep, but he found no bony ten- * denies®, no tenderness on deep pressure, no bruising of tissue, and no limitation of movement. He considered the punishment a reasonable one. Dr. Danes saw the boy on Saturday, May 7, when the found the marks faded, one almost gone, and hei said they were practically gone on Monday, May 9 (the day of the hearing). “The boy is a healthy boy, of good physique, characterised by his teachers as stubborn. “It was alleged that the headmaster hlad struck the boy over the head. The evidence clearly showed that such marks on the bead a® were seen on the Wednesday were not camsd by the .strap, but were sustained ari a scuffle with another boy just before the hell rang for assembly. The only matter for consideration is." the Hogging over the shoulder®. “There i® no doubt that a- sehoolmaster has a legal right to administer corporal, punishment, but the punishment must be reasonable and lor a ■sufficient cause. “In my opinion sufficient eau.se existed and the headmaster was justified in flogging the boy for defiance. Further, the flogging administered was reasonable. AVhen corporal punishment is necessary, as in this case, I think that to be effective on the offender some superficial skin marks a>re inevitable. ' “I cannot refrain from saying that some of the. evidence 1 beard convinces me that the boy live® in an atmosphere of disrespect to. his headmaster, his defiance of constituted authority of liis little world was the natural result of that atmosphere, and a. sooner or later was an inevitable consequence .if school discipline were to be maintained.

The information will be dismissed, with costs to., the defendant, witnesses’ expenses and solicitor’s fee £3 35.” At the hearing, Mr. A. G. Bennett appeared for the informant Borne, and. Mr. P. O’Dea for the defendant Nairn.