CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOLS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2674, 14 June 1905, Page 54

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOLS.

IMPORTANT MAGISTERIAL RULING. - (Fbom Oits Own Coebespondent.) CHRISTCHURCH, June 5. ; 4-. n Jntexestipg case occupied the attention of Mr H. W. Bishop at the Magistrate's Court to-day, in which Walter Baydon, of Erebbleton, claimed £10 damages from A. Bnamley, master of the Prebbleton School, in consequence of the latter having unreasonably inflicted corporal punishment upon a daughter -of the plaintiff. Tha defendant stated that when ho took charge of the school it was in a very bad condition as regards discipline. On the day the child was punished she had seven words wrong out of 14, and she, with a number of others, received one stroke from the strap. He could not have punished the others and let the one off, for that would have destroyed the children's confidence in him. Mr Haydon's girl was the only one that cried after the punishment was inflicted. Members of the Education Board visited Prebbleton with tr.o object of making an inquiry, but the plaintiff did not appear, 'ihe magistrate, in giving judgment, said that he had listened carefully to the defence, and he agreed with Mr Stringer up to a certain point. It was a moot point entirely as to whether corporal punishment was in any way necessary to the conduct of schools, and individujil people held different opinions. He had no sentiment about the matter, and had himself advised parents that the only course open to them was to inflict corporal punishment. But it was an entirely different matter whether, in the carrying out of the school routine, it was necessary to inflict oorporal punishment. It seemed to him an utter absurdity for a teacher to come t-o the court and say that he could only teach spelling by the strap, and that was practically what the defendant stated. However, he supposed that each teacher would have his own particular views on the way of imparting instruction, and anything he said would not affect the matter. In other cases the point to be' decided was whether the punishment inflicted was excessive, but in the present case the question was whether the schoolmaster was justified in inflicting corporal punishment at all, and he had no hesitation in saying that he was not justified. If the defendant could not conduct the school properly without inflicting corporal punishment he ought to have known, if he knew his business, h-3 had no right to take the child. He should have laid the matter before the School Committee and, if necessary, before the Education Board, with the. view of getting his. position fairly defined. The father of the child was "fully justified, in accordance with the cvid j .'ii^e, to have protected what he considered to be the best interests of his child. He did not attempt to defend- the plaintiff's action in regard to his general conduct or depoi-t-memt towards the schoolmaster, 'iov that had nothing to do witih the matter he had "to decide, which was whether the schoolmaster was justified in inflicting corporal punishment, slight as it was, under the circumstances. In his opinion the schoolmaster was not, and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to recover. He would give judgment for 4-Os, with costs. "The master's proper course," added his Worship. " was to expel the child, and not to inflict corporal punishment."

June 8. Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., has reserved his decision with regard to an application for leave to appeal against his judgment in fining a schoolmaster 40s for giving a girl a stroke with a strap for making mistakes in spelling-. Regarding the case, the "magistrate has explained to ail interviewer that he did not lay down a general principle condemning corporal punishment in schools, and the case did not call -upon j him to lay down such a principle. It was -quite a special case, and it was shown that I there had been an express condition, acI cepted by .the schoolmaster, that corporal punishment should not be inflicted on thechild. In view of such an explicit agreement, he had held there could be no just:fioation for inflicting corporal punishment. It would be a rash thing to say that a general principle could be laid down where so variable an element as human character entered, both on the side of the pupil and on that of tho teacher. In the particular ! case referred to the schoolmaster should have refused to take the pupil under the conditions stipulated, or, having done so and finding it inimical to discipline, he should have brought the matter before the school committee and written to the parent before chastising the child. He had not followed either course, and showed animus by ignoring a letter written to him on the : subject by the parent.

The notorious criminal Butler, with a number of aliases, whose crimes in Dunedin in 1880 created for a time a " reign of terror," is under sentence of death for murder at Brisbane. Though the murder took place in March laet, it was not until after he had been tried- and sentenced that his identity became known. His remarkably clever defence appears to have attracted the attention of the Victorian police, who, after communicating with the authorities at Brisbane, were convinced that th« Queensland murderer was identical with th© notorious Butler.

During the fortnight ended May 28 the traffic returns for the electric tramways showed receipts totalling £1713 6s lOd for 37,709 miles 33 chains, as agjjnst £1466 13a 8d for 30,709 miles 27 chains far >U '*>rresponding period last yjeag,