MAGISTRATE'S COURT, BRIGHTWATER.

Colonist, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8327, 15 August 1895, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, BRIGHTWATER.

YESTERDAY

[Refora W. Heaps, Esq., S.M., and F. Kel

lino and D. Martin, Esqra., J.J.P.]

W. B. I harm on v. R. MoGavin Thomson. — Mr ilcrley for complainant and Mr Pi', for defer d-.nt. Defendant was charged with neg^eoting to send bis ohild, Florence Bail;. Geraldine, to the Motupiko publio school when called upou by the C -mmittee in the terms of ib.B School Attendance Act, 1894.

Mr Farley sail that the complaint was laid under Beo-'ion 5 of the Act. There had been tome friction letween defendant and the schoolmaster, which culminated in an action for slander, and defendant sent hij children to a private schcol kept hy a lady narnel 'f. homson, rot the wife of defendant. So far bad the feeling gone that there were now 14 ohildren atienaingthis private school. The Scfcuol Committee had called up-?n dciandaj't '-o send his children to soboo-, but hs had neglected to do so, therefore the present proceedings. Ihe onus was upon the defeDdant to show that hia ohildren were at ending Echoo', or that there was a certificate of exemption granted for them. The complaint was made by Mr W. B. Thomson as Secretory of the Oommi.tee. Until a par* nt guardian could show a certificate of exemption, he was liable to have an order made against him to send any child bi twern the pg9» of 7 and 13, and if that order wa^ made and the child still kept from school, another charge, for whioh a penalty was provided, could ba laid. The Committee had refused t c application for exemption made | by defendant, and it was now asked that an | order should te made fer the child to be sent to school, filr Harley then called evidence i a3 fiilows.

Harrison Evans: I am schoolmaster at Moupiko. I produce the admission regUter. Florence Thomson was admitted on the 20th November, 1889, and the date of birth was 14th December, 1884. The residencs of her parents adjoins the school grounds. She was last at the ecbool on the breaking up diy for Christmas holidays in 1894. The nearest schools to that of Moiupiko are the Upper Motupiko and Motueka Valley, distant respectively five ani four miles, about. She ia now attending Mrs Will : am Thomson's school, which is close to the State school. In the early part of the year the school met in a room above defendant's srore.

Cross-examined : I believe that there are fourteen children at'ending this school. I have tha very slightest acquaintance with Mrs William Thomson, and don't know what kind cf teaching is given. The average attendance at the State school is sixteen at present, there being twenty-one on the register. W. B. Ihomson, secretary of the Motupiko Sohool Committee, said : The minutes from May of this year are in my handwriting. 0 j May 18th Messrs R. Thomson, A. G. C demen, and W. Quinney were by resolution of the Committee calling upon them ordered to send their children to school. At the June meeting replies were read from Mr R, Thomson, stating that he treated tbe application of tbe Committee with contempt, as the children referred to were attending a private school where satisfactory teaohing was providtd, without the children bei&g taught to steal or searched. In February defendant made applicati >n for a certificate of exemption, which was not granted. The Education Board at the time gran'ed exemptions to the children of Messrs R. Thomson and W. Quinney, pending enquity into the charges made aeamst the master. TheEe charges were considered by the Committee on March 4th, and dismissed. Since called upon to Eend his children to soho:l in May no exemption has been received by defendant. He did not know anything about the quality of the teaching given at Mrs William Thomson's school. Cross-examined : I have been a member of the Commit cc for some years. An application for certificates of exemption from defendant was refused at a meeting of the Committee held on 23rd February. It was refused pending enquiry into tbe charges made against the master by defendant. I don't know that the exemption Wsb not granted because the Committee did not undertand the " Act." There was not a copy of the Aot tben in possession of the Committee, one was received later from the Education Beard. I believed defendant said that his children were being instructed. There was a lot of chatter and there was a lot of petty spite exhibited by defendant against the master in my opinion. The Cominit.ee made no enq.iiy i-jto the qualivyof the teaohing being obtained by defendant f.r hia children. I did not kcow that Mrs Wm. Thomson was then conducting a sohrol, I did not remember In Ju-^e I was aware taat Mrs Wm Thomson was conducting sohool. hat the Committee considered it was not thtir pine? to enquire iato the ttaobing, but for defendant to satisfy the Committee. I don't take muoh notice of what defendant says.

Ee-txamined: The report of Mr Jennings has not beeo supplied to the Committee, and defendant ha 3 not done anything to satißfy tbe Committee that sufficient teaching was being given to his children.; Py the Bonch; There has not been eny evidence before tha Committee to Bhow that Mrs Wm Thomson has been exam ited by an Inspector, and is an efficient teaoher.

Mr >-arir,y submitted tbat be had shown sufficient cause for aa order to be granted, and closed b>s eas?. -

Mr Pit!, said for the defence, that the rights nf defendant in asking for f xemptions for his children attending sohool had been lost sight of, ihe Committee haviog been male by thi-m subaervier t to the chargtß made against the master. Defendant had no notice of his applioa'ion of the 23rd February having been refueed, nor indeed had he received an answer of any kind. He contended that the words iv section 3 of tbe School Attendance *oK. " may apply for and receive a certificate from the Committee," made it obligatory upon the Committee to grant the certificate npon any of the grounds that followed, tbe first of which was " upon satisfying the Committee that ihe child is under sufficient I and re^u'ar instructions c Bewhere." But ■ the (i< mmrttee had not made any enquiry mto ths application, whioh was refused, and they now turDed round and said " you can't succeed ti 1 you have a certificate of exemption," whioh the Committee wronply refused to give. Section sof the Aot eaid that if a child was not attending " school " notioe should be served upon thi parent rsquiriag the child to be seat to " sohoo ," and if after 'bat the child was not sent to •' school," the Court a -raid make an order for the parent to B<md the child to a " public Bohool." Here there was a plain instruction made between sobool and pablio school, the object being that tbe cbi'd should be eduoated at tome scboo . In the present oase the ohild was attending a sohool aa the complainant Com mittee knew, and the Committee when application for exemption waa made should have sati-fied itself whether or no the teaoher was efficient and regular. Tbe Nelson College? were schools but not -' publio " schools, and it would not be said that parents Bending ohildren to t:ose institutions should procure exemptions. The section he hsd quoted took the plaoe of eeotion 92 of the Education Act, 1877 (repe*led), wlnre the words " public school" were used in each place, showing that the destination made in the new Act waa intentional , He would bjow tbat regular and efficient teaohing was being given.

The Bench said that seemed a question upon wbioh the Committee should be satisfied. r f he Court mu;t make an order, unless a o?riifiaate of exemption waa produood. Mr Pitt urged that the Committee had done wrongly in refusiog the certificate. The Bench said that as there was on appeal to the Education Boa*d on the matter, it did not seem to ba ripe for that Court to deal with it till the appeal was settled.

Mr Harley said that the children were first taken away from school and then an exemption as ired for.

Mr Pitt sail no evidence of regular and efficient teaching oould be offered without this course being followed.

Mr Harley, replying to Mr Pitt's contention that sobool did not mean publio Bohool as Übed in a portion of seotion 5, said that in sections 3 and 7 the words were used indifferently, and there was no doubt that " school " meant " publio school."

An objection by Mr titt againßt the information on the ground that a speoifio date of

offenoe was not stated waß over-tuled'by tha j Bench, who allowed tbe reformation to be amended.

Mr Pit thei called evidence bb foi owb :—

Robert McGavin Thomson, defendant: On the 9th February I bad four ohildren of school age, and applied for a certificate of exemp ion for them, but received no reply. I attended a meeting of the Committee on the 23rd, aad then told the Committee that my child en were receiving private instruction, tut did not siy where. I got no definite answer. It was apparent that the Committee did not understand the Aot from whatwas said by some r f tbe members to that effect. I was not present when the resolution refusing to grant my request was passed. I then wrote to the Committee asking for their reasons for not complying with my request, but received no reply. Mra William Thomson is conducting a school to which I send my children, and I am thoroughly satisfied with the instruction given. I have appealed to the Education Board for an exemp ion, owing to the ndn compl'ance of the Committee. The eummons was issried on the 10th July, and on the 22nd the Board referred my appea' to the Committee. Cross-examine \ '. I have never attempted to show the Committee what quality of teaching the ohildren were receiving, ther^ being no request from them, or reply to my application for exemption. Mary Thomson (Mrs William Thomson) : I am no ralative of defendant, but sister-in-law of Mr W. B. Thomson. I have been keeping school sines the 28th January. There are 14 eh ldreri attending the school. I was educated at the George Street School, Carlisle, the best school in the north of England. I passed the usual schcol examinations, and also the junior and senior Cambridge local examinations. I hold school every day from 9.30 to noon, and 1 p.m. to 3.30, there being two single days and one week's holiday given since the opening. Florence Thomson bas not missed a single day. I produce Byllahus of subjects taught. I consider the children are being efficiently taught, certainly regularly. The Rev Mr. Jennings his examined the school. C.oss-examined: I am not a trained teacher. I don't know anything about the jn ew Zealand State school standard, and could not tay whether my teaching covers the requirements of ihe standards for children of the same age. I am quite willing for the Government Inspector to examine the school. •

Rs-exaniioed: I think the ohildren have advanced.

The Rev C. W. Jennings gave evidence that he examined the i-c'nonl conducted by Mrs Ttomeon on tbe 21tt June and reported to defendant the result thereof. The report set out the children had been examined in reading, writing, arithmetic, hi.tory, and drawing, and that they wire found to be thoroughly sound in the subjects taken up aud efficiently taught, especially in writng and dri wing; also that he was pleased with the tone and discipline of the tchool. He further s-.id tbat in his opinion the ohildren were being efficiently instructed. So far as he oould judge from one visit, he should cer« tainly judge Mrs Thomson to be an efficient teacher.

Cross-examined: He had occasionally examined State schools for prizegiving, and having ohildren of his own attending tbe State sohool, he bad a fair knowledge of what was required by the various standards. Wm. Quinney said that he was in February last Secret iry of the Committee. At the meeting on tbe 23rd February the Aot was in tbe poßseßsion of the Committee. He heard some of the Committee tay that they did not understand the Act. He oould not cay what was the reason for the refusal of the Committee to grant the exemptions. He applied with defendant for exemption.

Mr Heaps said that the Bench were unanimously of opinion that the oase should be adjourned until tbe result of tbe appeal to the Education Board was made known. The Aot dearly provided that app ication for exemptions certificates Bhould be made to the

School Committee in the firet instance, and if the Committee neglected or refused to give a certificate, the right of appeal to the Education Board remained, and this had been exercised in this oasa, but the result was not yet known. It would therefore be premature for the Couit to dispose of the oase as it stood, and an adjournment till September llth would be made.

Similar charges against A. G. Coleman, W. Quinney, and another against the Bame defendant were also adjourned to the Eame date,

James Stagg v. Walter Coombes.— Claim for £3 15s on judgment summons. This oase had been adjourced to allow the parties to come to an arrangement. After soma little consideration defendant agreed to give plaintiff an order on any Burplus there may be over the amount scoured by bill of sale on a borse and trap, and the oaee was dismissed. A. J. Palmer v. G. B. Griffiths.— Claim for £14 10s 9d. Judgment for plaintiff by con* sent, and order made for payment by monthly instalments of £1 eaoh, witb costs 20s.