CHASTISING A BOY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVII, Issue 17661, 23 December 1920, Page 8

CHASTISING A BOY.

L. FARMER IN COURT. r. " EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT." FINE OF £5 IMPOSED. tr [bv telegraph.—OWN' correspondent.] le MORRIXSVILLE. Wednesday. A Motumaobo fanner, James Grayden, appeared hefore Mr. G. W. K. Kenrick, , S.M., at the Magistrate's Court, Morrins- , ville, on a charge that on November 26 he committed an aggravated assault on an v ' Industrial School boy, eight years of 16 age. Accused pleaded not guilty. Evidence was given alleging that the ! 3 boy had been severely beaten on the day 11 in question. A schoolmaster, doctor, and k " police constable examined the boy four days after, and found a number of severe bruises on the back, arms, and ears. The , r skin had been broken in several places on t- the back, and the boy suffered from the it bruises. The doctor and schoolmaster !r described the thrashing as excessive. 11 The boy said he had to get up between three and four o'clock in the morning and e assist with the cows. He did not get to is bed until between eight and nine o'clock >f at night. He, often went to sleep in d school. i- Evidence was given by accused and his >f wife that the boy, who had been with him ', nine months, had been very ill-behaved. Complaints had been received of the boy y stealing lunches at school, and accused y was cautioning the boy about this,'when >- he made use oi bad language. Accused e then thrashed him. The boy had been I. very troublesome, and had been very unit truthful. The injuries to the ear had been y caused by righting, and the bruises on the o back by the boy falling off a log. The 0 accused had only chastised the boy on the it one occasion. Accused said he and his wife had to take the boy out with them c in the morning, because* they could not g trust him in the house alone. He was e very mischievous. r Thc> magistrate said he disapproved of e the action of the Education Department . in boarding out boys to dairy farmers before they were 15 years of age. It was a necessary that young boys should get s plenty of sleep. Boys with mischievous r tendencies should be kept in the school - and subjected to the systematic discipline 1 which farmers could not give them. Accused, in this case, should have sent the boy back to the school to be disciplined. His action in getting the boy up at four o'clock in the morning was wrong. There' . was no question the punishment had been excessive. The boy was only eight years of age, and it should not have been hard to knock a bov of that age into shape. . There w;s no-doubt the boy had been illbehaved. The punishm-ent was probablv an iso'ated one. A fine of £5, with £3 2s costs, was imposed.