ASSAULTING A SCHOOLMASTER.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11400, 18 April 1899, Page 6

ASSAULTING A SCHOOLMASTER.

A MACIISTHATK'S VIEWS OX COUPOKAL PUNISILMKNT.

ADVICE TO TUU EDUCATION BOAIID,

Harry Martin MurryiiU wan charged at Milton yesterday before Mr R. 8. Hawkins, S.M., with iipaaullinfr Andrew I'arlano, a leaehor' in the Milton District IJitfh School, on April 6. The complainant also asked that tho defendant niightr bo bound ovoi to keep the peace.

Mr D. Reid appeared for the infoi-mant, and Mr A. 15. Ua,ggilt for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. Mr Reid, in opening the case for the informant, said his client was a teacher in tho Milton High School, and tho defendant was an accountant residing in Milton. Defendant's children attended the Milton High School, and some time ago ho took exception to Mr J'arlano punishing them, as they did not take kindly to Die strap. Subsequently Mi' .Parlano hit one of his children over the lingers with a,strap, and on tho date mentioned in the.:'information defendant, after speaking to'him about the .matter, drew out and hit him in the face. After tho occurrence ho--(Mr licid) wrote to the defendant telling him that unless he apologised for his conduct to Mr Parlano and lirumiscd not to repeal tho offence, legal prosedings would ho taken against him. To ■Jiis defendant replied assuring his client iiul lie (defendant) had no malice or ill-will awards him. Mr I'arlano did not accept . his as an apology, and another letter was ..rilten to the defendant informing him that

unless ho iit once sent a loiter of tijXjlpKy and promised not to further'molest .Mr Parlane proceedings' would bo taken against him. ■■ 'Andrew Parlano, teacher ;in Hie Milton High School, deposed that on April 6 lie saw defendant al the corner of Spbncer and Shakespeare streets. Defendant said: "Did I not tell you not to lift a linger to any of my children?" Witness replied. "Well, v/hat did I clq to your child'/" Defendant repeated his former question, and witness said, " Well, what about it if you did?" Defendant thereupon, . i?aid he was the guardian of liis children', and lie would teach witness to punish them. He then siruek out and hit witness a violent blow in the face. Witness .was put on his defence, and had to ward off defendant's blows /or some considerable lime. While . defendant was dancing about, witness told liim hot to. make an ''-exhibition of himself-«=tbat ho was committing a breach of the ;ie;ico, and ■Hint; if ho (defendant) had nothing- to lose 'witness had.. After defendant had' calmed down, witness attempted' to reason with him, but he would not listen to. reason, and said if witness attempted to _strike his children again he would ' knock witness's head . oft. Defendant also said the yarn about his child cheating was an infernal lie. Witness tried to explain that it was a pupil teacher in his class that reported on tho child's behaviour during his absence. He' did not think lie had ever used improper treatment towards defendant's child. Some considerable time ago, when he was out; of his room, he strapped the- child in question on the hand for attempting to take advantage of a; pupil teacher. As a result of that punishment, defendant met witness'jin the street, and told him that his children would not do with tho strap. Witness explained to him that his'girl', along with others, were a source, of considerable annoyance to the pupil teacher in charge.. He also said that such conduct I would not lie tolerated, and thai, his child ■ was extremely careless. Defendant then | asked witness to: let him .know if Ike child misbehaved, and., lie would make -it a joljy sight hotter for ljer than Ke (witness) would. On tho Thursday before Easter the pupil teacher, on his return to his class, reported two children for •■ cheating. The class was doing dictation exercises; and defendant's girf asked anotlier 'girl how to spell the word. -Witness subsequently asked Agnes Marryatt what she was out. for, and she said for cheating. He then to)d her he intended to report her to her father. He did afterwards report the matter to her father, who seemed to make light of the matter. The child also told him that her father had not punished her. On the ■ following day she and another girl were chattering in the class, and, lifting his 'strap from the table, witness gave them a slap; across the fingers Tfiid told them to go on I with their work. That was what defendant' complained of. / Cross-examined: Witness did not hit the child very hard.. He did not think she was a very timid child from' her behaviour in school. Ske was about 11 or 12 years of age. He did not think -she was a very sensitive girl. Neither did lie think that.he was hasty tempered. He was once brought ;up before the committee by Mr Harry White, and they decided thai he had committed a technical breach of-the regulations, -l.\it not that he had- excessively (punished-a child. Agnes Marryntt had no reason to" be afraid of witness. On one occasion he broke a bangle on Agnes Marryatt's arm' with a strap. He was not aware 'that the arm was inflamed for two or three.days When defendant assaulted witness the blows drew, blood, but he was not" incapacitated for work. He did not know now why ne did not hit defendant when he was assaulted. He would not deny that,.tlie child's nrrn was core when he broke the bangle, but he did not see. how it possibly, cou'd have been. After the assault, defendant called nnon witness and said he did not want to bear him any malice or ill-wili giving as his reason that he did not want to sit down to sacrament at church next day bearing malice or ill-will to any man. , This closed the evidence, for the prosecution; .- Mr Haggitt submitted that the information ought tc be dismissed on the grounds that there was sufficient provocation to justify Mr Marryatt in committing an aEfault. Mr Hawkins said he did not know that counsel could find any authority for the committal of an act of tlio kind referred to.

Mr Haggitt submitted that the treatment of Mr Marryatt's children by. Mr Parlane showed that there were extenuating circumstances.

Mr Hawkins remarked that that was a cliffe- | rout thing. i Mr Hiiggitt saad tho evidence would show j that Mr 'Marryatt had frequently spoken to | Mr Parlane on this subject, and the latter; had taken no'notice whatever of what ho said, | but had severely punished his child on two , occasions. Mr Marryatt held very strong i views on the suljjocb of the punishment of j children, and Mr Parlane was in a position to know that lie objected very strongly to his ] children receiving corporal punishment. This | child m particular was a delicate and weak | child; she was very timid, and was really m terror of Mr Parlane on account of tho way ho treated her. Ho (counsel) submitted that it was not the duty of a school teacher to fill his pupils with terror, and that Mr Purlane had acted very hastily in this matter. He would call evidence to show that on ono occasion the child's arm was badly inflamed for two or three days by a blow she received Harry Martin* Marrvall, accountant i.. j .M.'(iill''s Dour mill, deposed, that lie spoke t;> | Mr Parlane some time ago about punishing his child Agnes. The child was n nervous child, and punishment would take nor wits away from her so that she would not know what she was aboul. Witness requested the informant if he had any fault to find with ths child to -report it to him, and he would see that the cause of tho complaint was remedied. The cause of the information being laid was owing to his going home one day and (hiding the child at home. He inquired the reason of her being at home, and subsequently .went Ito Mr Parlane and remonstrated with him on lib treatment of the child. Mr Parlane said j F.lw had been chesting-, and Ids remarks were equivalent to saying that witness w;\k responsible for the fault.' This increased witness's anger and he struck Mr Parlane, who said, "Oil, if that is what you want, two can | play at that same,'1 and thereupon assumed i a fighting- attitude. Witness then said, " Yon I thrash me, or I'll thrash you." After a few j seconds 2\ir Parlane said ho would not fight.--Cross-examined: Witness believed it was an untruth thai his child caused-much annoyance at school. He had been a teacher for four lor iivo years, and during that time he never struck rl child. Septimus. Hodgson, bootmaker, deposed that he was a cousin of the defendant and lived in his house. About a week ago he saw a red I mark on Agnes Marryatt's arm about 'fin I long and iin wide. She complained that Mr I Parlano had strapped her, and lurnod up her sleeve and showed him the mark. lie ('ailed the attention of the girl's mother lo the marl,-. Agues Marryatt was, next called upon to -•■ive ovidencc, but whan sho stepped into the witness box she began to cry, and the dofen dant said he did not think that it was any uso asking her to give evidence. His Worship agreed with defendant, and the witness was not examined. Mr Haggitt then intimated that he had nr. 1 more witnesses to call. Mr Hawkins, in giving judgment, said he. had no doubt whatever that the assault could not possibly l-.o justified. It was quite inexcusable c.cii on the supposition that defendant had been annoyed before. As regards tho plea that there were extenuating circumstances in cjuncciifm with the assault, 1.:, Worship was not aware what view other people held, or what, view school committees and education boards held, with, regard to ' corporal punishment, but it certainly seemed an extraordinary thing to him when the rest |of the world were abandoning corporal punishment and were relegating it to the extremes! cases of criminal conduct, that it should be considered necessary to apply it m any form to small children in the elementary schools. To say that a tcache. could not conduct or carry on a school without continually using the strap was. it seemed to him, practically an admission -..'I1 want of moral control of the

children. Ho thought it was absurd to say that a man could not keep control of children without having ;> strap on his table and going round the school hitting then- will) it. If that' was said to be authorised ho could not think that it was authorised. The regulation raid that teachers should only have recourse to corporal punishment sparingly. How was n man likely to have recourse to it sparingly when ho kept- a strap o» a table, and went round live or six times a day hilling-children over tho 'hands? He confessed _it seemed a great pity that the JMucalion ISonrd should allow this strap at ull. In his early days lie recollected well corporal punishment was freely administered for every kind of thing; but tlioso days had passed away. Those wore days wlien people recognised.th.il moral control was a far superior thing to violence, and that we should not appeal to the animal nature of a child, Iml should appeal to its'mind—to tho intellectual part of a cliild t to the moral part of a. child, —and not always be appealing to ils animal instincts. Ho could not imagine a more unfortunate thing for young children than to have the fear of a strap continually in front of them if they committed any trivial offence. That this was a trivial otfonce in tho present case way shown by tho evidence. It only showed the danger of allowing this use of the strap by teachers. The evidonce went to show that the way tho plaintiff drew the child's attention to what she was doing was by hitting her fingers with a strap. His Worship 'thought that was the way to intimidate and frighten a child. The regulation of the. board wanted to be very much more clear in ils statement. AVhat was sparing punishment in ono man was reckless abuse in the eyes of another man; and he thought no corporal' punishment should ever .be adopted oxcopt for grave moral offences, and then only by the allowance of the head master. This continual use of the strap was a most mischievous thing. He might be iiv opposition to some educational authorities, but he had had1 some experience of children himself from his earliest days. Ho had also done a good deal of teaching in a voluntary way, and he never had any reason whatever to resort to physical force. Ho had never resorted to it in the case of his own children, and he had never let anybody else do-it. He hoped tho Education .Board would take this matter into consideration. This sort of thing went on not only in Milton, but in other schools, he had been told. Tho strap was .kept on the t'ablo in the school, and it had a very bad effect on the children, and also taught the tcacliers to rely upon this constant use of physical force, instead of making them rely upon their moral control and,exercising moral control over their own actions. .He was bound to say that ho was glad of the opportunity of expressing his.opinion on the matter,' though ho should be one against many. The defendant, however; was not justified in committing an teault> and therefore must bo fined; but there was riot .the, slightest necessity to bind him over to keep1 the peace. His Worship thought that was shown by the fact (hat tho defendant called upon (he complainant and told him that ho wanted to make friends again, and that ho did not want to have any ill-will towards him when he was going to partake of a Christian ordinance. Complainant said the defendant ought to apologise, but the defendant said he did not feel that he should apologise. ■.. His Worship 'confessed that there was-a great'deal in that. The defendant might have felt very' strongly that there was.provocation so far as ho believed. But there'wpß no provocation to justify an--assault. 'His AVorship. however, thought that, t-akfta the defendant's letter as a whole, it was a pi.vil and kindly letter, and should iiave been taken as a holding out of the olive branch 'of pence. He did.not think that the caso was one that ought to have been pressed against the''defendant.. . The complainant said tho defendant must apologise; he wanted his pound of flesh.; but his Worship did not bolieve in/his gellinir his nound of flesh. A line, however, must be inflicted, because the assault . }vas unjustifiable. Defendant would .be /mod 10a, and costs of court (7s). . ■ ■'.■■.■■"'

Mr Reid implied' for professional costs. His Worship:. I e.mnot allow any professional costs', bocause/I think the complainant ought, to-haye'I'accepted the man's hand when it was. offered.