PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOLS. Auckland, December 22.

Otago Witness, Issue 2287, 30 December 1897, Page 21

PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOLS. Auckland, December 22.

The case 8 gainst Howard S. J. Ellis, head master of the Richmond road School, charged assaulting Cecil. Jones, sg-d eight years, ■was concluded at the Police Court this morning before Mr T. Hutchison, S.M. The evidence was conflicting, both medical and otherwise. On the one hand, some of the witnesses stated that the punishment was unduly severe ; and on the other hand, Dr Lewis, for the defence, deposed that a mere mark with a nail brought a red discolouration on the skin,' and he did not think the bruises which had been caused by the caning ■were an index of its severity, for the skin was more than usually sensitive. There was a patch of eczema on the leg. Dr Kiug stated that he had examined the boy's skiu this morning, and found that drawing his nail over the skin caused a distinct "blush" over the $>art. In summing up, Mr Hutchison said the question in this case, as in all such case*, was whether the chastisement inflicted by the defendant was reasonable under the .circumstances or whether it was exceisive. Defendant was a teacher appointed under the Education Act, and that act permitted a teacher to correct a pupil. Bat it was a material circumstance that the Education Board had made regulations for the guidance of -its teachers in the infliction of corporal punishment. These required that corporal punishment should'be inflicted sparingly, and left its infliction to the discretion of the head master. Neither the acb nor the regulations, however, prescribed the manner in which corporal punishment was to be inflicted, aud it would seem that the master must use his owu discretion in

the matter. In the present case there were several material factors. The boy punished was just hetwesn eight and nine years of age. His appearance, he (Mr Hutchison) thought, was that of a delicate child, but Dr King had said the boy was not delicate though not robust. The punishment on tbe Srst occasion was one cut on the hands and three or four on the thighs and hips for being inattentive and restless and afterwards disobedient. Later on he received four strokci on the body for inattentiveneis. It was dimcult to express an opinion on the point, but, looking at the regulations, it did seem to him the punishment exceeded the offecce. Something was made of the facb that the boy said the pain passed away very soon. He did not know whether tbßt really was the case, for a little boy's memory might bs rather short. As to the medical evidencs that bruises were not; a precise measure of the force applied, he doubted whether it was relevant, for it seemed to him that punishment should be proportionate to the ability of the subject to stand it. It was quite clear that the marks indisputably showed that force of a very considerable amount was applied to tbe boy, and he thought Ihe punishment in excess of that which by the law it was allowable to inflict. In arriving at this conclusion he did not for a moment impute to the master any bad motives ; in fact, he foun.d that the punishment was inflicted without any display of temper or pique. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, he thought defendant must be convicted of assault.* The fine would be 20s, with costs £6 4-a. Mr Cotter asked if the fine might be increased to £5 I*, eo'asto give defendant an opportunity of getting a judment in the Supreme Court. He could not appeal if the fine were only 20s. Mr Hutchison: "Defendant has a right to appeal from the judgment on a point of law." Mr Cotter: " There is no point of law here. It ie upon the facts that we wish to appeal. The question is an important one to all teachers, and they wish generally to get a judgment of the Supreme Court. They want a decision as to whether tbe punishment was reasonable or not, and whether the evidence of persons who did not see the punishment at all is to be taken." His Worship eaid he would consider the question of an appeal.