ASSAULTING A SCHOOLMASTER.

Otago Witness, Issue 2356, 20 April 1899, Page 19

ASSAULTING A SCHOOLMASTER.

A MAGISTRATE'S VEEWS ON COR- - PORAL PUNISHMENT. >DVICE TO THE EDUCATION BOARD. Harry Martin Marryatt was charged at Milton yesterday before Mr R. S. Hawkins, S.M., with assaulting Andrew Parlane, a teacher in the Milton District High School, on April 6. The complainant also asked that the defendant might be bound over to keep the peace. Mr D. Reid appeared for the informant, and Mr A. B. Haggitt for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. _ Mr Reid, in opening the case for the informant, said his client was a teacher in the Milton High School, and the defendant was an accountant residing in Milton. Defendant's children attended the Milton High - School, and some time ago he took exception to Mr Parlane punishing them, as they did not take kindly to the strap. Subsequently Mr Parlane hit one of his children over the fingers with a strap, and on the date mentioned in the information defendant, after speaking to him about the matter, drew out and hit him in the face. After •the occurrence he (Mr Reid) wrote to the defendant telling him that unless he apologised for his conduct to Mr Parlane and promised not to repeat the offence legal proceedings would be taken against him. To this defendant replied assuring bis client that he (defendant) had no malice or ill-will towards him. Mr Parlane did not accept this as an apology, and another letter was ■written to the defendant informing him that unless he at once sent a letter of apology and promised not to further molest Mr Parlane proceedings would be taken against him. Andrew Parlane, teacher in the Milton High School, deposed that on April 6 ho saw defendant at the corner of Spencer and Shakespeare streets. Defendant said: "Did I not tell yd'u not to lift a finger to any of .my children?" Witness replied. "Well, what did I do to your child?" Defendant repeated his former question, and witness eaid, " Well, what about it if you did?" Defendant thereupon said he was the guardian of his children, and he would teach witness to punish them. He then struck out and hit witness a violent blow in tho face. Witness was put on his defence, and had to ward off defendant's blows for some considerable time. While defendant was dancing about, witness told him not to make an exhibition of himself — that he was committing a breach of the peace, and that if \ he (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 off. Defendant also said the yarn about his cluld cheating %vas an infernal lie. Witness tried to explain that it was a pupil teacher in his class that reported on the child's behaviour 'during his absence. He did not think he •had ever usod 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 in the street, and told him that his children would not do with the strap. Witness explained to him that his girl, along with others, ivcre a source of jconsiderable annoyance to the pupil teacher in charge. He also said that such conduct would not be tolerated, and that his v child was extremely careless. Defendant then asked witness to lei him know if the child misbehaved, and he would make it a jolly sight hotter for her than lie (witness) would. On the Thiirpday before Easter the pupil teacher, on his return to bis class, reported two children for cheating. The claas was doing dictation exercises, and defendant's girl asked another girl how to spell the word. Witness subsequently asked Agnes Marryalt what she was out for, and she said for cheating. He then told her he intended to report her to her father. He did afterwards report the matter to ncr father, who seemed to make light of tho 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 hig strap from tho table, witness gave them a slap across the fingers and told them to go on 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. She was about 11 or 12 years of age. He did not think bhe was a." very sensitive girl. Neither did ho think that he was 'hasty tempered. He was once brought up •before the committee by Mr Harry White, and they deoided thai he had committed a •technical breach the regulations, l.ut not that he had excessively punished a child. .Agnes Marryatt had no reason to be afraid .of witness. On. ono occasion be broke a bangle on Agnes Marryatt's arm' with a strap. He was .not aware thai 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 he did not hit defendant when he was assaulted. He woxild not deny that the child's »vm was sore when he broke the bangle, but he did not see how it possibly could have been. After the assault, defendant called upon witness and said he did not want to bear him any malice or ill-will, giving as his reason that he did not want to sit down to sacrament at church next day bearing malice or ill-will lo any man. This closed the evidence for the prosecution. Mr Haggitt submitted that the information ought to be dismissed on the grounds thai there was sufficient provocation to justify Mr Marryatt in committing an assault. Mr Hawkins said ho did not know that counsel could find any authority for the committal of an act of the kind referred to. Air 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 diffe-

rent thing. Mr Haggitfc said the evidence would show that Mr Marryatt had frequently spoken to Mr Parlane on this subject, and the latter had taken no notice whatever of what he said, but had severely punished his child on two occasions. Mr Marryatt held very strong views on the subject of the punishment of children, and Mi Parlane was in a position to know that he objected very strongly to his children receiving corporal punishment. This child m particulai was a delicate and weak child ; she was very timid, and was really in terror of Mr Parlane on account of the way he treated her. He (counsel) submitted that it was not the duty of a school teacher to fill his pupils with terror, and that Mr Parlane had acted very hastily in this matter He would call evidence to show that on one

1 occasion the child's arm was badly inflamed for two or three days by a blow she received at .school. Harry Martin Marryalt, accountant in. "M'Gill's flour mill, deposed that he spoke to Mi- Parlane some time 'ago about punishing his child Agnes. The child was a nervous child, and "punishment would take her wits away from her so that she would not know [ what she was about. Witness requested the ( informant if he had any fault to find with the child to report it to him, and he would see i that the cause of the complaint was remedied. I The cause of the information being laid was owing to his going home one day and finding the child at home. He inquired the reason of her being at home, and subsequently went , to Mr Parlane and remonstrated with him on his treatment of the child. Mr Parlane said she had been cheating, and his remarks "were equivalent to saying that witness was responsible for the fault. This increased witness's anger and he struck Mr Parlane, who said, " Oh, if that is what you want, two can play at. that game," and thereupon assumed a fighting attitude. Witness then said, "You thrash me, or I'll thrash you." After a few seconds Mr Parlane said he would not fight. — Cross-examined: Witness believed it was an untruth that his child caused much annoyance at school. He had been a teacher foi four or five years, and during that time he never ftruck a. child. S 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 mark on Agnes Marryatt's arm about 4in long and £in wide. She complained that Mr Parlane had strapped her, and turned up her sleeve and showed him the mark. He called the attention of the girl's mother to the mark. '• Agnes Marryatt was next called upon to ' give evidence, but when she stepped into the ' witness box she began to cry, and the defen- . dant said he did not think that it was any j use asking her to give evidence. j His Worship agreed with defendant, and j the witaess was not examined. / | Mr Haggitt then nitimatedj. that he had no more witnesses to call. <v Mr Hawkins, in giving judgment, said he had no doubt whatever that the assault could not possibly be justified. It was quite inexcusable even on the supposition that defendant had been annoyed before. As regards the plea that there were extenuating circumstances in connection with the assault, l'>r 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 ard were relegating it to the extremest cases of criminal conduct, that it should be considered necessary to apply it in any form • to small children in the elementary schools. To say that a teacher could not conduct or carry on a school without continually using the Btrap was, it seemed to him, practically an admission of want of moral control of the children. He thought it was absurd to say that a man could not keep control of children without having a strap on his table and going round the school hitting them with it If that was said to be authorised he could not think that it was authorised. The regulation said that teachers should only liave recourse to corporal punishment sparingly. How was a man likely to have recourse to it sparingly when lie kept a strap on a table, and went round five or six times a day hitting children over the hands? He confessed it seemed a great pity that the Education j Board should allow tins strap at ; all. In his early days he recollected well corporal punishment was freely administered for every kind of* thing, but those days had passed away. These were dayd when people recognised that moral control was a far superior thing to violence, and that we should not appeal to the animal nature of a rhild, but should appeal to its mmd — to the intel lectual part of a child, to the moral part of a child.— -ami not always be appealing to its animal instincts. He could not imagine "a more unfortunate thing for young children j than to have the fear of a strap continually j in front of them if they comvnitted any trivial offence. That this was a trivial offence in the present case was shown by the evidence. It only showed the danger of allowing this use of the strap by teachers. Tho , evidence went to show that the way the j plaintiff drew the child's attention to what i 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 its statement. What was sparing punishment in one man was reckless abuse in the eyes of another man : aud he thought no corporal punishment should ever be adopted except for grave moral offences, and then only by the allowance of the head master. This continual use of the strap was a most mischievous tiling. He might be in opposition to some educational authorities, but he had had 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. He had never resorted to it in the case of his own children, and ho had never let anybody else do it. He hoped the Education Board would take this matler into consideration. - This sort of thing went on not only in Milton, but in other schools, he had been told. The strap was kept on ihe table in the school, and it had a very bad effect on the children, and also taught the teachers 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 he was glad of the opportunity of expressing his opinion on the matj ter, though ho should be one against many, j The defendant, howr^er, was not justified in committing an adtault, and therefore must be fined ; but there was not the slightest necessity to bind him over to keep the peace. I£i« 1 Worship thought that was shown by the fact that the defendant called upon the complainant and told him thai ho wanted to make • friends again, and that he did no.fc want to have any ill-will towards him when he wan 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 he believed. But there- was no provocation to justify an assault. His Worship, however, thought that, taking the defendants letter as a whole, it was a civil and kindly letter, and should have been taken as a holding out of the olivo branch of peace. Ht did not think that the case was one that ought to have been pressed against the defendant. The complainant said the defendant must apolojrite; ho wanted his pound of flesh : but his Worship did not believe in his fretting his pound of flesh. A fine, however, must be inflii'trd. because tho assault wa-; unju=lifiable. Defendant would be fined 10s, and costs ol court (7s) Mr Reid applied for professional costs*

i His "Worship : I cannot allow any professional costs, because I think the complainant I ought to have accepted the man's hand when it was offered.