CHARGE OF ASSAULT.

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 14199, 26 August 1919, Page 7

CHARGE OF ASSAULT.

} SCHOOLMASTER FINED FOR EXI CESLIVELY PUNISHING SCHOLAR. J ! I Judgment was delivered in the MagisI trade's Court yesterday by Mr J. Logan j Stout, S.M., in the case Mrs Cornford j v. A. O. Buehlcr (headmaster of West End School) for alleged assault on her sou, Jack Cornford, by severely bcati ing him with {l leather strap. Mr Ongley appeared for Mrs Cornford, while Mr H. R, Cooper acted for defendant. After the evidence taken last week was reviewed at some length His Worship continued: From Dr Barnett’s evidence, allowing a certain discount for picturesque description, there can be no doubt that the boy was subjected to a most severe flogging and this is supported by the evidence of Ur Peach. Ur Putnam agrees that the thrashing was a good sound one but does not think it was excessive. Ur Putnam, however, did not see the boy until a week after the thrashing had been administered and his evidence is on this account, hardly so valuable as Dr Barnett’s. All the doctors agree that there is nothing to indicate that the boy bruises more easily than other boys. Dr Barnett’s description of the injuries sustained by the boy is: lump on upper right thigh as large as an orange, another lump almost as big behind the left buttock and below that again two well-marked weals extending across the left leg down to behind the right knee. He noticed a red line down the centre of the first lump and blue discolouration due to hemorrhage under the skin and similarly describes the other lump. His opinion is that the marks must have been caused by very severe bruises and adds that he would characterise the thrashing as unmerciful. Ur Peach still found similar marks on his examination on the 7th August. He stated the strap was not an unreasonable instrument but that the administration of four strokes followed by five, if hit very hard, would be a bit unreasonable. All doctors agree that the boy has suffered no permanent physical injury. There can be no doubt from the medical evidence and the evidence of the boy, his mother and sister, that the second thrashing must have been extremely severe and have affected the boy for some considerable time. There is no doubt as to the right of a master to administer moderate or reasonable corporal punishment for a sufficient cause —and it lias been held in the New Zealand case of * ‘ Hansen v. Cole,” adopting the principle laid down in the American case of "Lauder v. Leaver,” that in determining whether a punishment administered by a master was reasonable and for a sufficient cause, considerable allowance should be made to him by way of protecting him in the exercise of his discretion and if there is a reasonable doubt whether, the punishment was excessive he should have the benefit of the doubt. The protection accorded in New Zealand is statutory and is to be found in section 85 of the Crimes Act, 1908. That section says that it is lawful for a schoolmaster to use force by way of correction towards a pupil under his care, provided that such force is reasonable under the circumstances. It is, no doubt, necessaiy that a master should have the right to supervise and correct the conduct of his pupils out of school hours when they arc not under direct parental control. The principles and reasons in the decision of Cleary v. Booth, are, I think, equally applicable to our compulsory educational system where the authority to punish is statutory and not delegated by the parent as it was held to be in elicit* CclSG* The defendant was, therefore, justified in administering the first punishment. With regard to the second thrashing, the conduct of the boy Cornford on his return to the school room had the effect of distracting, from their lesson ,a large class of pupils. In such a case example has to be considered and discipline on a number of children has to be preserved. Mr Hostick was therefore justified in sending Cornford for further punishment and the defendant was also justified in administering some further reasonable corporal punishment and the only question for my consideration is whether the punishment inflicted was beyond the bounds of moderation and so excessive as to take away from the defendant the statutory protection afforded by section 85 of the Crimes Act, 1908. In forming a conclusion in the matter it must be noticed that the defendant made no enquiry as to how the boy Cornford had shown that he treated his punishment lightly. He admits that he was annoyed but not angry and that he intended to make, and did make, the second punishment much more severe than the first. It was, I think, his duty before making a second punishment so severe to make some enquiries ns to the precise nature of the boy’s offence. Medical and other evidence shows that the injuries sustained by the boy could only have been inflicted with the strap produced if excessive, force and weight had been put behind the blows. In determining whether such force was reasonable the age and physique of the boy must be taken into consideration. The boy does not appear to be robust for his age and I have come to the conclusion that the defendant, taking into account that he did not enquire the exact offence, but was merely told that the boy had taken his punishment lightly, did administer excessive punishment. T think, further, that the medical evidence shows that the punishment was beyond the bounds of moderation and in my opinion a master would not he protected by section 85 of the Crimes Act whatever the offence committed hy the pupil where the punishment exceeds those bounds. Some limit must be placed upon the masters’ right to administer correction and that limit must be. that the punishment must bo reasonable ami not exceed the bounds of moderation. It is true that both the defendant and Mr Hostick use the term "gross insubordination” in describing the boy’s conduct, but neither has satisfied me that any further explanation was made at the time than that the boy had made light of his first punishment —the manner of doing so was not made known to the defendant. Mr Bostick’s evidence is very indefinite as (<> what he told the defendant and the defendant admits that lie asked for no explanation but that he knew that (he boy would not be on the floor unless he had misbehaved himself. That may. <>r may not be, a reasonable attitude to adopt where followed by moderate punishment, but in rny opinion something more is required where a punishment is to be extremely severe. It seems to mo that the defendant’s zeal to uphold his reputation as a disciplinarian and his annoyance that the first punishment was

taken lightly has led him on this occasion to overstep the mark. While I think the punishment somewhat excessive I have already held some punishment was justified and in the circumstances I do not think the case calls for a severe penalty. I think justice will be met if I enter a conviction, inflict a line of £2, and order the defendant to pay the costs of the prosecution, including the foes of Ur Barnett and Ur Peach for their examinations of the boy Cornford.” The costs amounted to £7 11/6. Mr Cooper stated his client had requested that the flue be increased to £5 1/. His Worship said this was unusual. Mr Cooper said that under the circumstances the Magistrate might possibly grant the request. It might possibly be advisable to got the ruling of the Supreme Court. His Worship said the Judges had already decided that in cases of this nature'the magistrates should not increase the fines. Mr Cooper further stated that his instructions really came from the Teachers’ Institute. His Worship said he could not recognise the Teachers’ Institute. Had it not boon that the Judges had said it was not the correct thing to do he might have taken the course suggested by counsel for defendant. However: under the circumstances he could not see his way to do as requested.