SCHOOLMASTER’S APPEAL.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 49, 22 February 1912, Page 6

SCHOOLMASTER’S APPEAL.

I'Ai • * ’ • /■ ■ ' , _ WARM PASSAGES iN COURT. WITNESS AND CHAIRMAN AT VARIANCE. (Per Press Association.) Palmerston, February 20. The hearing of the appeal of Thomas Stagpoole, head teacher at Linton, against his dismissal by the Wanganui Education Board, was resumed to-day, and is arousing great interest. The Court is crowded daily. The evidence •of Mr H. A. Parkinson, headmaster at the Newtown school, Wellington, and representative of the Teachers’ Institute, was taken. It was largely expert evidence, dealing with the results shown by the appellant during his six months at Linton. Ho expressed the opinions that the report of the Board’s inspector on Stagpoole’s work was quite satisfactory, but when under crossexamination by Mr Piraui, chairman of the Board, he admitted that the writing at the school was not veiy good. He, however, maintained that the results should be judged on inspector’s reports, not on the schoo, books, which were a small portion or the training at the schoo l . He admitted that the results were not sc good as they might be, but said the teacher was working under obvious difficulties. Regarding the charges against Inspector Stewart, Mr Parkinson said that Mr Stewart had given him a general denial of ; these charges, and had impressed him.with the belief that the charges were untrue. The reports that had subsequently reached him from other schools caused him to change that •view. Witness said that the general idea among the three inspectors of the Wanganui Board appeared to bo that Stagpoole was eccentric. At the -conclusion of the .evidence the 7 witness made* the following statement: The executive of the Institute had deputed him to get all possible information bearing on the case, with a view to the Institute coming to a decision as to whether or not to bring a case. Mr Pirani, chftirmali of the Board, had forwarded to witness, on his owlt initiative, some letters from, Miss Molloy, assistant tedcher at Linton. They were letters that no chairman 'Of l iv public body should receive, and it was felt that they had a great deal to do with Mr Stagpoole’s dismissal. The executive could hardly express its indignation at such a system being followed as appeared to be followed by the chairman of the Wanganui Board in receiving these surreptitious communications. The effect among a large body of teachers was exceedingly disquieting, especially in view of Mr Pirani’'s statement at Wanganui that lie received twenty of these letters a week. (Mr Pirani: “I made no such statement. I said twenty letters. You are putting words into my month.”) Continuing. Mr Parkinson said that every, head teacher in the district was wondering to-day whether his assistants were among Mr Pirani’s private correspondents. Of course the Court could, not deal with the matter or express any opinion, upon it, but he felt it bis duty, as the official representative of the teachers, to draw public attention to the fact that this ease had largely arisen because two lady friends of the chairman of the Board had been sending letters to the Board. Mr Pirani: Sir, I don’t think that this man should be allowed into the dock to make false statements. He knows as /well as i. do that one of thr two ladie«. referred lo 1 have never spoken or written to. Mr Parkinson knows this from the correspondence, which is dated a week after the committee of the Board arrived at its decision, and Mr Parkinson has a copy of that correspondence. The statement about the other lady is equally an untruth. T never spoke to her or never hoard of her in my life till after the action had been decided upon. It is a grossly wrong tiling to state that the assistant teacher was the cause of Mr Stagpoolo’s dismissal, when Mr Parkinson knew that the letters were written a week after the committee’s derision, I ask you, continned Mr Pirani, to withdraw those untruths you have made in the box.

The Magistrate: At any rate, Mr Parkinson, yon arc not here to state what has come to you by hearsay. Mr Parkinson: The main portion of what T have stated I received from Mr Pirani’s own lips! I should not have referred to it, only I have been accused of dishonourable actions. The case was adjourned till to-mor-row.