Science and Theology.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 13596, 16 May 1908, Page 3 (Supplement)

Science and Theology.

In the Nisi Triu.s Court at Lecdt. Assizes recently Mr Justice Cliaiinell ami a special jury were iu'cii|iii.'il hi hearing u libel suit "arising out of allegations of infidel Unfiling in an undenominational school at Fishlike, near Doncaster. Miss Winified Mary Gould, the headmistress of the Fislilike Endowed .School, sued the vicar of the parish (the Rev. Eliezer Flicker* for damages for libel and dander. The defendant xought to justify certain .statements, and pleaded privilege in respect to others. Counsel for plaintiff stated that the action was in respect to a .•■cries of libels and slanders uttered in connection with the plaintiffs conduct as head mistress of the school, and the gcueial nature of the charge** was that she took advantage of Iter position to impart infidel teaching to the children, telling them there was no God and no Jesus Christ, and, further, that man was evolved from the olwer forms of life. On Sunday, the 24th o! February. last year, ihe plaintiff's attention was called to a notice which had been affixed to the church doors, and to the dnois of the chapels in ilk> neighbourhood. It pmported to he signed by the vicar ami two ministers of Nonconformist rhaiiel.-*. and read : All parishioners are invited to come to .: public meeting on Thursday next, in order to iuquiie into the infidel U-arhing reported un given to the childr. it at Fishlaki- School. Thai was the first libel complained of. Miss Gould attended the meeting, but took no part in the psoceedings. The vicar was in the chair, and quoted a statement by one of ttie pupils, who said Miss Gould told them that "an insect became a fish, a lish became a monkey, and a monkey became a man, and loss, his tail."' Other children, according to the vicar, said the teacher taught them there was no Ji*u:« ChrMt. Miss Gould denied emphatically that she made any such statement. In March an inquiry was held by a meeting appointed by the County Council. Both parties in the case were present, and the defendant took the conduct of the case against Miss Gould. The committee completely exonerated the head misticsa of the charges made against her, and declared that due weight had been given to Bible teaching. As to the suggestion of evolution, they thought the leaching was "-possibly too advanced for the children." The committee further added: "Wo consider that, owing to the action of the vicar and others, the whole business had been grossly exaggerated, and that there has been no infidel teaching of any description." Even if the occasion were privileged, said counsel, thcte was aifiple evidence that the reverend gemkuiau was actuated bv malice.

Plaintiff, in the course of her evidence, said that she heard the vicar .state before tho Committee of Inquiry: People used to Lave an eye in the middle of their forehead, but- they not use it, and go it sank into their heads. Their ears used to wag about, too, but they never used them, and if they wanted to do so now they could do so. They used to have tails also, but they never used thenl, so they shrank into a lump. First of all men were little cells; they improved, and became fish that swam in the eea, then an animal that crawled on the land, then

:i monkey that swung in the trees, and

then a man. Giving an account of what .she did actually leach, plaintiff said she told the children we had reached our present .state of development partly through the work wc had done. We had lost the use of certain organs by not having used them in recent year?'. Shu also told them tiial in bygone times human beings were supposed to haw inhabited forests, and been at the mercy of beasts and hostile tribes; that in these days they could hear better than they could now on account of the fact that they could move their c:trs in much the same way as animals, but that, owing to the increased safely of our lives, we were no; in fear of these dangerous animals, and had gradually ceased to move our ears. She further stated that in the human skeleton the backbone gave evidence of their having been at some time or other a tail formation, and that some scientists believed that at one time wc had been little better than an animal, and had possessed a tail. She did not mention Darwin. She wrote on the blackboard as the text of the lesson "The dignity of labour." She had never denied the existence of the Deity, and never told the children that man Mas descended from a monkey. With regard *o the libels, s>he said her solicitors wrote giving Mr Flecker an opportunity to apologise, but no answer was sent.

■ Four or five of the scholars .it the school were called, and said I her had never heard 'Miss Gonld deny the existence of God and the Saviour." She did mention, however, declared two of the witnesses, that in Ihe opinion of some scientists man bad come from monkeys, but Miss Gould did nob say she believed it. Mr George Dunston, mining engineer, and a member of tthe West Riding County Council, j-aid he considered that uie religions teaching in the school was quite satisfactory.

The defendant, who was afc times somewhat overcome -with emotion, read his address to the jury -from manuscript*. He said he thonght it his duty lo take up the matter on behalf of the parish. Some of the people -were concerned about it, and the children made jests, asking "Have von found your tail?" or "Have you lost your tail?"— (Laughter.) Some one ieems to have told the plaintiff that she would get £SOO from the trial, and l>e able to many.—(Laughter.) Coin"- into the witness box, the defendant withdrew the plea of justification, and 6et up that all the occasions were privileged. Mr Atkinson (to defendant) : Is it your opinion that a person who believes in the Darwinian theory is an infidel?' jjefendanbi Anl I bound to answer that question, my Lord? His Lordship:" I *on't see why you .should not. Defendant t Well, I don't want to be called on for another libel.—(Laughter.) Being reassured by His Lordship that there was no" danger, defendant replied: "Well, then, I do." The jury, after -deliberating for twenty minutes, gave a verdict for the- plaintiff, awarding 40s damages. On. the following morning the defendant asked to be relieved on the payment of costs, but the Judge declined to interfere.