THE STUKE INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL CASES. WELLINGTON, November 21.

Otago Witness, Issue 2437, 28 November 1900, Page 38

THE STUKE INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL CASES. WELLINGTON, November 21.

Mr Justice Edwards decided this morning in reference to the Stoke Orphanage cases that the six . counts in the indictment against Brother Kilian should be taken separately. The intention of the Legislature was that the court should exercise unrestricted discretion as to separating trials — of course conducive to the ends of justice, — and in this case, in which six* separate assaults were alleged upon sepai % ate persons, and covering a period of two years, such, a course was desirable In the afternoon James Solan (Brother Kilian) surrendered to his bail and pleaded not guilty to a charge of having committed a common assault on a boy named James Joseph Owens on Slay 30. Messrs H. D. Bell and M. Myers prosecuted for the Crown. Messrs Skerrett, Fell, and V/ilford appeared for the defence. The case for the Crown was that Owens -■had been boxed on the ear, had his head punched, and was excessively beaten with a supplejack. Mr Bell said he was not opening a case of gross brutality against accu&ed. All it was was a case of a strong man using improper violence to a boy. Owens, in his evidence, said he was now 16 years old, and entered the Stoke Orphanage in 1893. He narrated the circumstances under which the assault was committed, the evidence being similar to that adduced before the Royal Commission in Nelsou. At the conclusion of Owens's evidence the court adjourned till to-morrow, accused feeing admitted to bail, and the jury released for the night. November 22. The hearing of the charge of common assault against James Solan (Brother Kilian) was continued to-day. For the defence, Mr Wilford, in opening, said Brother Kiliau, being schoolmaster, had under the law the right to use reasonable force in correcting the boys under his charge. Accused, giving evidence on his own behalf, said he remembered the circumstances of ,the alleged assault on the boy Owens. A day or two prior to the occurrence he had punished the boy for disobedience in school. He gave him two smacks on the hand with a supplejack. On the evening in question the boys were formed into ranks to go out. He noticed Owens talking, and requested him to maintain silence. The boy anawered him back, and witness boxed his ears. He kicked at witness, and witness slapped him again. The " boy then threw himself on the ground, and started screeching. Witness denied having punched Owens in the eye or kicked him. At the time there was a mutinous spirit in the school. To Mr Bell: "Witness asked to be allowed to give evidence before the commission, but the director of the school said it was not necessary. He understood the reason he had been ordered to leave the orphanage was that it was considered | his conduct had not been satisfactory. Witness had never put the boys in celk. I He had never struck any boy with his fist, nor drd he lose his temper .with Owens. His Honor, in summing up, said it was beyond doubt that at the time a strong | spirit of insubordination existed in the school, and it was, before all things, necessary that discipline should be maintained. Accused did not &eem to be a strong man, and Owens was a sturdy youth. He directed the jury to dismiss all prejudice from their minds, and reminded them that one" of the growing evils of the day was the insubordination of youth. The jury, after a quarter of an hour's retirement, returned to court with a verdict of not guilty, and accused was discharged. The Crown prosecutor stated that he ■ would proceed with the charge of assault 1 on Davis against the same accused next dayNovember 23. At the Supreme Court to-day a second charge against .Brother Kilian that he had asaulted a Maori (boy named John Davis by punching him in the eye was proceeded with. The Crown prosecutor intimated that he did not intend to proceed with the four other charges against accused. James Solan, otherwise Brother Kilian, giving evidence on his own behalf, said he i had struck Davis on one occasion, as the , boy had misbehaved during prayers. The I usual weapon of punishment at school was j a supplejack. If any boy refused to hold ' ibis hand out he was struck on the back

or legs till he did so. Cross-examined by the Crown prosecutor, witness said he was the person who administered punishment to the boys in the cells with a stick. While the boys were locked in the cells - they were taken out on successive days, and caned with supplejacks by you? — Yes. Do you say that was not cruel treatment'/ — I did not believe it was cJruel then. What do you say now? — I do "not believe it was. What was the longest period for which a iboy was imprisoned in the cells? — I do not know. Has any boy been in the cells for a month? — I heard a boy was there. I heard at the time of the commission that a boy was imprisoned for two months. What is your own knowledge? — I cannot speak as to time. Please give me an answer? — I know a boy was imprisoned for three or four weeks. How, many times did you use the supplejack on him? — Not more than three or four I occasions. How many strokes did you give him j each time? — Four to six. In answer to further questions, witness denied having used his fist to strike Davis, j and contradicted a suggestion that a boy j named M'Mammin. had been taken from | the cells and caned on four successive days. \ Boys had been imprisoned in the cells under the direction of the head teacher, Brother Loetus. The jury retired at 5.38, and in le.ss than 20 minutes came back with a verdict of not guilty. Accused was discharged, and bail was continued on the other charges against him, concerning which the Crown prosecutor will make a statement on Monday. November 26. The further hearing of the Stoke Orphanage casejb had to be postponed for a, few clays in consequence "of an accident to Mr Skerrett, one of the counsel for the defence, ! who was injured on Saturday when play- i ing polo.