A LIBEL CASE.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue 7381, 6 February 1902, Page 2

A LIBEL CASE.

At the District Court to-day, before His Honor Acting-Judge Kenny, there was commenced the case Thomas v. Judd. This was a claim for £500 damages for alleged libel. The following was the jury : — Messrs W. A. Limbrick, D. Green^ W, Campion, and J. V. Riddle fforeman). Mr Skerrett (with Mr Crump) for plaintiff, and Mr Barton for defendant.

Mr Skerrett said the claim was for a libel published in a newspaper. Plaintiff was a schoolmaster at Eltham, and defendant was a respectable settler. Tho libel complained of was that the plaintiff bad administered undue punishment to defendant's son. a boy of 1H years, who attended the school. Although the claim was for £500, plaintiff did not desire heavy damages, but such moderate damages as would mark the jury's disapprobation of tbe libel. .The alleged punishment of the boy took place on the 25th October. The boy was under Miss King's charge, and was on the morning in question very recalcitrant. Miss King informed the master, and in the afternoon the boy received six strokes of a supplejack. Boy-like, the boy had taken precautions by placing his hat in such a position that it did duty as armour. This was discovered because the remainder of the boys in the know laughed, and the master then gave the youngster six more strokes. The boy was subsequently examined by Dr. Scott whose 'evidence would be given. The School Committee enquired into the matter,' and noo knowing the result of the enquiry, defendant wrote the alleged libellous letter to the paper. The letter accused the plaintiff of brutality. Johanna King, a teacher in the Eltham school, said on the 25th October she was in charge of the Third Standard, in which Ivan Judd then was. The lesson was spelling, and witness noticed that Judd was not spelling the words. She stopped the class, and told the boy be was not spelling tbe words, and to go on spelling with the class. He did not reply, neither did he obey instructions. The class was again stopped, but tbe boy would not reply to her inquiry why he would not epell and if he was ill. She said he would have to go to Mr Thomas, but he did not move, and she sent a boy for the master, to whom she related what had occurred. Mr Thomas asked the boy why he had disobeyed his teacher, and then went: for Judd's sister, who was not to be found. The master then said ho would deal with Ivan Judd after dinner. After lunch, Mr Thomas brought in Ida Judd. It was a common practice to have an elder brother or sister present when the cane was being administered. The boy still remained recalcitrant, and Mr Thomas gave him six strokes. He did not take much notice, and the master, discovering that Judd had placed a cap in his trousers, gave him six more strokes. The first two of the latter were pretty hard ; the others were lighter. To Mr Barton : Her class was usually well-behaved, the children needed reproving occasionally. She had not on the day of question spoken to the boy Judd in an irritable manner. She did not know that ho was nervous and delicate. If the punishment to be administered was a slight offence the elder brother or sister of the child to bo punished was not brought to witness the chastisement.

Taliaim Thomas, tho plaintiff, said he had been a headmaster for eighteen years. Ivan Judd's attendance at school had been very regular. Witness' system of punishment was to give one stroke for a small offence; two for something a little worse, and not beyond four except for serious offences; and six or eight for very serious ones, according to tho gravity of the offence and the size of the child. Half punishment only was given in tho case cf girls. Some teachers in the sohool had not the power to inflict corporal punishment. His plan was for the teacher under him not to send a child to him for punishment for one offence unless serious, but to make an entry on a card, the black mark to be crossed if the pupil during the next week is good. The plan had lessened the punishment by more than half. The boy Judd was not a delioate one. Miss Kinh was a teacher combini lg firmness 1 and mildness, and he believed she was popular with the children. When he received the complaint regarding Judd, he asked the boy for an explanation, which was not forthcoming. The idea of having an elder brother and sister present at the punishment cf a younger was because the influence of the former had a good effect. After giving Judd six strokes, the boy appeared inclined to laugh, and tbe other children smiled. Witness then suspected that the boy was " armoured," and examination proved the suspicion was correct, the boy leaving his headgear in his clothes. The result was that proceedings were commenced denovo. Witness meant to hurt the boy, bu,t the punishment was got exceptionally

severe. On the Saturday evening the School Committee held an enquiry ; the boy was present and seemed, to sit comfortably on a hard seat for about an hour and a half. The certificate of birth of the boy phowed that he was born in July, 1890. | Eltham Argus put in, with alleged libellous letter, in which it stated that the child's age was ten.]

To Mr Barton: Tbe boy Judd had suffered an injury at the school about four years ago. Witness would not describe him as a' delicate child. H,e considered it a serious offence for a child to persist in disobedience in school. He would not swear that at the Committee enquiry he produced the larger supplejack. He did not use the larger one on the ooy. He did not remember having punished Mrs Harvey Thompson's children severely. He bad received complaints from Mr Jenkins. Jenkins complained whenever his children received punishment. Witness did not remember punishing a child named Minnie Maule so severely that tbe child bad to go home immediately after it. He had received no complaints from Mr McNab. There had been complaints regarding the Neilson children. Witness had expelled Judd's older boy, and the father appealed to the committee. The result was that the boy was reinstated, conditionally on his not committing the offence (fighting) again. He had been very good since.

Dr. Scott, Eltham, said on 26th October, 1901, he examined a boy named Ivan Judd, who was suffering from some bruises on his buttocks.

There were no abrasions of the skin or weals. The discolouration was of an ordinary character. There was nothing in tue maiks to show that the child had been brutally chastised.

(Left sitting.)