A LIBEL CASE.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue 7382, 7 February 1902, Page 2

A LIBEL CASE.

At the District Court Thurday, before His Honor Aotiag-Jurige 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 (foreman).

The plaintiff, whose cross-examination had been interrupted to allow of medical evidence being taken, again went into the witness box. He said, in reply to Mr Barton, tbat at the Committee enquiry he had stated that the Judds had at one time been on the verge of mutiny. He had not used the larger stick on a small boy named Taylor. He did not keep particular sticks for particular families.

Robert Tait, chemist, Hawera, said he had weighed the supplejacks (produced). The big one weighed 544 grains (1£ ozs. about), the second 396 grains, the third 840. The cane was a little heavier. The lightest strap weighed 3 ozs 50 grs, the second 3 ozs 130 grs, and the biggest one 4 ozs 296 grs. J. H. G. Chappie, Presbyterian clergyman, and a member of Eltham School Committee, was present at an inquiry in the schoolroom. The boy Judd was physically examined by the Committee. The boy seemed fairly healthy. The marks did not appear so very severe, taking cognizance of the fact that the boy was fair and of sensitive order of skin, The boy sat for an hour and a half, but did not show signs of being ill at ease.

To Mr Barton : The chastisement the boy received was, he thought, severe. John Harre, master of Rawhitiroa State School, gave evidence as to the use of the cane. He considered disobedience a grave offence againsl school discipline, and from five to ten strokes of the cane was a proper punishment.

Henry Law, headmaster at Te Roti, considered the punishment inflicted on young Judd was not excessive. G. S. Claphazn, headmaster at Mangatola, gave similar evidence. Dr Westenra said he had seen Dr Paget's certificate, and the results as set forth therein were what might have been done by a caning which was not brutal. Fair people showed marks of bruising more readily than dark persons did.

To Mr Barton : Before a punishment could be called brutal there should, in witness' opinion, be a breach of surface.

Mr Barton, in opening the case for the defence, said the master had no doubt lost his temper, and gave heavier strokes than he might have given under different circumstances. People would be called who saw the child on the day of punishment, and at later periods, and were shocked at his condition. One would go so far as to say that it was a description of punishment which deserved three months, while women would be called who would say that the appearance of the marks on the boy made them sick. The resolution passed by the School Committee was, counsel said, a wretched compromise; it expressed sympathy with the boy's parents. Sympathy for what ? Because the boy had received the thrashing which, according to the Committee, he richly deserved ? Mr Judd, having had the child examined by Dr Paget, was naturally suffering under a sense of indignation, and he wrote the letter to the paper honestly believing it to be true and bona fide — that tho boy had been subjected to excessive punishment.

Dr. Paget said he had examined the boy Judd, and had given a certificate detailing the bruises on the boy's buttocks. He had also given a further certificate to the effect that the boy was entitled to remain away from school. He was still of tho same opinion. The bruises would make the part tender if the boy had to sit for any length of time.

To Mr Skerrett : For a severe offence he would not consider tbe punishment of six strokes with a cane excessive.

G. W. Taylor, Chairman of the School Committee, Eltham, said on the 26th October he examined the boy Judd, and noticed that he was bruised on the buttocks.

Boderick Williamson said he was a pupil teacher at Eltham school in October, and remembered Ivan Judd being chastised. Witness did not see the punishment administered. He had seen the master use tbe stick produced. The small stick was used for the girls, the smaller boys, and, in fact, most of the boys ; the larger one had been used for very few children, of certain families. One of the boys on whom the larger stick was ' used was Glentworth ; others were Fitch, Lloyd, Peebles, all of the upper room. He was not certain about those in the lower room. The big cane was also used on Clinton Taylor. Witness had reason to believe that Ivan Judd was a weakly boy ; be was a timid child. His behaviour could not have been better while under witness. He was not a very smart boy, and seemed to be sensitive. Witness' experience of the boy was that it was not in him to sulk with him (witness). The boy never required punishment while under witness 7 charge.

To Mr Skerrett: Witness was, as far as be knew, on good terms with Mr Thomas. There had been a difference between them, and when witness failed in his examination he wrote to the Education Board com* plaining of Mr Thomas. The letter said that witness had been moved into Mr Thomas' room, and had no class to teach, that he was not receiving instruction in arithmetic, and he asked for a move. He remembered Glentworth, Clinton Taylor, Fitch, Lloyd, and Peebles being punished at least once: they had been punished offcener, but he did not take notice of the punishment. All the boys except Clinton Taylor were senior boys. Witness knew Thomas had a down on the boys ; be did not know the reason. He had not given bis evidence through spite. T. C. Stanners was an old Eltham School Committee-man, and was present at the enquiry into the punishment of the boy Judd. The boy was not strong, but witness did not know that he had had any serious illness. At the examination witness saw the boy was bruised on the buttocks.

Mrs Neilson saw the boy Ivan Judd a week after he had been punished. The boy's buttocks were discoloured, the discolouration being about the cize of witness 1 palm, as far as she could remember.

Mrs Scott said the bruise on one side of young Judd's buttocks was about the size of the mouth of an ordinary tea-cup.

Ivan John Evan Judd stated that he remembered the day he got the beating. He had made a mistake in writiug an " r," and Miss King said he would have to stay in after school, and write one hundred lines. When the spelling lesson was taken witness did not take part in it, because he was thinking of his promised punishment. Miss King asked if there was anything wrong with him, and he .did not answer. He thought she would send for Mr Thomas. Miss King spoke in a gentle, kind voice. She sent for Mr Thomas, who promised him a caning after dinner. After dinner ho went back prepared, having planted his cap where ! it would be of the greatest utility as armour. The master discovered this line of defence, and told him to remove the cap, after which he was given six more strokes with the cane. After the' thrashing it hurt him all tbe afternoon, and he felt a bit sore when he went home. He was sore for about a fortnight altogether.

To Mr Skerrett : Miss King was generally kind to him and gentle to the class

Frederick T« Gush, an ex-school-master of twenty years' experience, said he saw the boy Ivan at the School Committee meeting. He had heard the evidence of Miss King, Mr Thomas, Mr Williamson, and Dr. Paget, and his opinion was that the boy had been very cruelly beaten, and that the severity of the chastisement was not warranted.

To Mr Skerrett : He had not been a teacher of a State school since 1885. His last school was a private one at Patea.

Constable Simpson, stationed at Eltham , said he saw the boy Ivan on the Sunday after the punishment, and he agreed with Dr. Paget's description of the bruises.

The Court adjourned Jtill 10 o'olook, Friday morning.

The libel case Thomas v. Judd was resumed in the District Court this morning'

Ivan Judd, re-called for the purpose of further cross-examination, said he always helped his father to get in the cows. He did not help to get in the cows on the Friday night, but helped to milk them. On Saturday, Sunday, and Monday he helped to get in the cows and milk them. Mrs Bliss was called, but her evidence

was unimportant.

John Judd, the defendant, said the boy Ivan had been caned on other occasions as well aaonthe 23rd October.

On that date the boy's elder brother, at bed time, had called witness' attention to the condition of Ivan. Witness examined the boy, and found what he considered severe injuries. The boy was bruised — badly bruised— black and blue. Ivan, as far as witness had found, was a very truthful boy. He (Ivan) had given in the witness-box the same story as he had told witness and the School Committee. The boy snid the reason for hie disobedience at school was because be was upset by the thought of the punishment he was about to receive. Witness thought the punishment inflicted on the boy was more severe than the circumstances warranted. Witness honestly believed the boy had been treated with brutality. Witness thought that as father of the boy hia judgment might be partial, and he, therefore, asked several respectable people of Eltbaiß, most of them people with families, to examine the boy. Among the persons were Constable Simpson, Mr GL W. Tayler, Mr and Mrs Haywood, Mrs Scott, Mrs Neilson, and Drs. Scott and Paget. The effect of what these people had said was to strengthen his belief that the boy had been severely punished. The boy had not been strong for about four years, having been seriously injured by other boys at scheol, as a result of which an operation had to be performed. Once before he saw the boy with two stripes received at school, but they were not of a serious nature. On the Saturday morning witness complained to the Chairman of the School Committee. He thought he would have got justice in the shape of a warning to the schoolmaster not to treat other boys in a similar way. After seeing in the paper the resolution passed by the School Committee, he wrote to the paper to place the facts before the public and endeavour to remove the slur the resolution had placed on the boy. The resolution did not explain what the boy's offence was, and the public, after reading it, might imagine that the boy had committed some very serious offence. When he wrote that the master had treated the boy with great brutality, he did so under the belief that the boy bad been cruelly, harshly, or excessively punished. Witnfiss had never had a row with Mr Thomas, but on one occasion his wife had had the master before the Committee) and on another witness had. He had no feeling of malice towards Mr Thomas.

To Mr Skerrett : On the morning of ■Saturday, witness took the boy to Dr. Scott, who told him that the boy was severely bruised. He did not ask Dr. Scott for a school exemption certificate, but asked Mr Tayler. He knew he could have appealed to the Education Board against the School Committee's decision. Dr. Paget had not told witness that he was making a needless fuss. Witness could not swear that the boy had any illnesses during the past two years.

Mr Barton spoke on the question of privilege. He argued that the letter was privileged, being a defence of a member of defendant's family, in answer to a resolution of the School Committee, by the publication of which the public would be led to believe three thingsfirst, that the boy had been guilty of an offence which deserved severe punishment; secondly, that the father bad no business to make the complaint to the School Committee ; and, thirdly, that the chastisement complained of was justified and justifiable under the circumstances. In the interests of the public the defendant was privileged in publishing bis version of the affair. Our system of education was not voluntary, but compulsory, and everyone was interested in it. If the defendant published the letter honestly and bona fide believing it to be true that was sufficient answer.

Mr Skerrett combatted tbe arguments of counsel for the defence, and cited cases to prove that tbe letter was not privileged.

His Honor said there was no authority to justify him in holding tbat the words were written on a privileged occasion.

Mr Barton then addressed the jury. The defence to be established was that what had been said was true under the circumstances. It had been ruled that the only evidence that could be brought as to the punishment could be given by either doctors or schoolmasters. That was a difficulty which the defence had had to contend with owing to the state of the law. Further, you could not " get dog to eat dog," and the remark applied to doctors and schoolmasters. The Educational Board had decided that the. use of the stick must be done away with in this district, because it was considered a form of punishment that had been abused. Yet the cjass, who, as a body, had had the stick taken away from them were the ones who were called to say whether in their opinion the beating by the boy with a stick was or was not excessive. Counsel then reviewed the evidence of the doctor, and argued that the evidence had proved that the boy had been severely punished, as might oe judged by the fact that the boy was in pain for a fortnight after the beating, and that the marks remained on him for three weeks. Mr Judd having failed to get justice from the committee, did what was natural under the circumstances, he appealed to the public, and published the doctor's certificates as well as explained what the offence was for which the boy had been punished. Counsel urged that Mr Thomas had set out to give a punishment the effects of which would have lasted for a quarter of an hour, but his self-love was wounded because the boys had laughed at him for giving six strokes to young Judd's cap instead of the boy, and, therefore, inflicted a beating, the marks of which remained on the boy for three weeks.

[ Mr Skerrett said the one was of I considerable gravity and importance, not only to Mr Thomas, but to the whole community, the former because it affected him in his professional character, and the public generally because it affected the proper carrying on of the work of the schools to which they sent their children, The jury could come to no other conclusion but that the defence in this case was based on spiteful innuendo and an endeavour to prejudice the jury. Tho facts of the case as to the beating were not disputed, and it was for the jury to say whether the beating had been excessive. Counsel for the defence had referred in personal terms to the plaintiff, but he (Mr Skerrott) would leave it to the jury to judge by Mr Thomas' demeanour what manner of man he was. The first question to be decided was the letter defamatory, and on tbat point there could not be much doubt. The second question was whether it was true. The onus of proof rested with the defendant, but he (counsel) submitted that the evidence was all one way. Tbe real question was whether the puuishment was so excessive as to merit the application of the term " brutal." Counsel argued that the boy had been punished for a gross breach of discipline. If such a thing was not put down what would become of a school. There was an interval of an hour between the complaint to the master and the infliction of the punishment, and in the interim Mr Thomas had time to cool. Further, he did not inflict the beating in secret, but with 50 or 60 little eyes looking on. The assumption that Mr Thomas had lost his temper because of the cap incident was absurd ; there had been no evidence to that effect. The medical evidenoe, counsel urged, was to the effect that the punishment was not excessive. He considered it unfair that counsel for defendant had led the jury to undrstand that the Education Board had done away With the stick because of abuses.

(Left sitting.)