TROUBLE AT A SCHOOL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17711, 23 August 1919, Page 12

TROUBLE AT A SCHOOL

PARENT causes disturbance.

TEACHER'S ACTION CONDEMNED.

In the City Police Court yssterday, boy?, r ,° r , '}• JBartholomcw, S.AL, Einnia. riii • . was charged with assaulting Ihirza Morris, and with creating a disturbance in-tho presence of the scholars.—Mr ™" rc, K of appeared for the prosecution JLI1 r I^ r Han lon for tlio defendant. ' llnrza Morris said sho was second assistWakari School. The defendant , S o! '° to the school about 4- p.m., after •school hours, and asked if sho was Miss Morris, Witness answered that she was. Defendant then ordered her to allow her son to go home. Mrs Still then struck witness a.cros3 tile face, pushed tlio door oi tho class room out of her hand, and into tho room, saying that sho would ™ , children hoar wliat she had to say. one then abused witness in front of the pupils. Mr Moir (head master) then arrived on tho scene, and witness explained the nature of and tho reason for the punishment about which defendant was Complaining

1 o Mr J lait'on: There had been no unpleasantness at tho school.,, She liad received one previous complaint with regard cJL i° P uni . sllment 3 inflicted, at the school. Stro had pinned a piece of paper to the boy s coat, with a list of school requisites which had failed to bring, with instructions to nim to bring tho paper back with u l ' a ls failed to do. Sho then sewed another label on tho boy's coat (" Ido not do as lam told"), with orders that it was to remain there for two days, but the boy had returned to school m:mis tho poster. She had then punishwl him for disobedience. Sho had then written a. note to tho boy's mother, explaining the intention of the punishment, and had then sewn another labal containing the words: "I do not do as I am told," on the lapel of hi? coat, and he had again gone to school without his insignia. The reason she had adopted this form of punishment was because 6he had" been instructed to use as little corporal punishment as possible. Doris Mary Catherine Muir (a teacher at the school) gave evidence corroborative ? »r assault on Miss Morris. In answer to Mr Hanlon, ■witness admitted that she had adopted this form of punishment once herself.

Mr Hani on admitted that a technical assault had been committed, but said it was perfectly obvious that children should be punished according to twentieth century ideas, and not by a scheme whereby a teacher could label a child on the streets. I-he defendant had removed the labels on tht boy's clothes, and the lad had been punished for it, and sho had actcd under great provocation. Mr Bartholomew said that any properly constituted parent would support a teacher in a proper form of punishment, but this was intended to hold the child up to ridicule. The teacher had acted in a very high-handed manner. If this was a form of feminine logic it was just as well that the awarding of punishments was not given to women in the higher walks of life. Defendant's's provocation had been gross in the extra me, and he did not feel inclined to condemn her too severely. Her real offence was her conduct to complainant in the presence of the school children. The charge of assault would be dismissed as trivial. For the second offence—that of making an unseemly disturbance—the position would bo sufficiently vindicated by a fine of ss.