A TRUANCY CASE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16508, 25 March 1914, Page 7

A TRUANCY CASE.

EXPLANATION BY THE DEFENDANT.

A report of a truancy case heard before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., *vt tho Magistrate's Court last Friday has brought forth an explanation from the defendant.

The report stated that H, Yeatman, a milkman, was charged with failing to send his children to school, and that evidence was given by the truant officer to the effect that the children had to get up at 4 a.m. and accompany their father on his milk round. When they got back home tho father said it was " too far to go to school," and he kept them at home. It was further stated by the truant officer that one of the children milked six cows. A conviction, accompanied by a fine of ss, was recorded.

Mr H. Yeatman, the defendant, yesterday s;avG a "Lyttelton Times" reporter his side of the case. He said that in his case Section 152 of the Education Act, 1908, which requires that before prosecution a parent shall recoive a week's notice of the failure of his child to attend school, had not been complied with, and ho had not, therefore, had an opportunity to place his defence properly before the Magistrate. He had been told since that a notice had been posted to him, but ho had not received it. As his address was well known he could not understand why he did not receive tho letter if it was sent to him. Tho fact remained that tho first notice he received of an intention to prosecute was a summons charging him with an offence. The newspaper report (a summary of which has been given) was in error on one noint. The defendant was not charged with failing to send his "children" to school, the charge being made in respect of one child only. As set forth in "the summons the charge was as follows:—" That you, H. Yeatman, being tho .parent of a child required by the Education Act, 1908, to attend some public school, such child being enrolled in the register of a public school, to wit the Opawa School, did not attend the same public school, as required by Section 149 of the statute of the said Act, during the week ending March 6, 1914." The facts of the case as presented now by Mr Yeatman are as follows: The boy in respect to whom the charge is made is twelve years of age. tor a child of that age his education is well advanced, as he is in the fifth standard, notwithstanding the fact that, by his father's desire, he was kept two years in the third standard, it appears evident, therefore, that the boy's home duties have not seriously interfered with his schooling. During a period of six consecutive weeks, including the week covered by the charge, the boy was absent on only four halfdays, two of which occurred in one week, while three were distributed over tho remaining five weeks. The bey was also absent from school as a regular thing on ono half-day weekly, but this was due to the fact that on that day he attended a wood-work class at the Technical College, and the distance between the two institutions made it impossible for him to attend both college and school on the same day.

Mr Yeatman has obtained legal advice to the effect that he could wet his conviction quashed on the facts, but he does not feel called upon to incur this expense, relying upon a publication of the facts of the matter to clear him from an imputation that ho is subjecting his boys to a species of "child slavery," an imputation which he very naturally resents, and which he most emphatically denies.