BRUTAL ASSAULT ON BOY

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19622, 17 October 1933, Page 3

BRUTAL ASSAULT ON BOY

FATHER GIVES SEVERE FLOGGING MAXIMUM PENALTY IMPOSED A revolting story of how a father brutally flogged his 10-year-old son with a length of rubber tubing 5-Bths of an inch in diameter to such an extent that the boy had to receive medical attention was told in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon, before Mr C. R. Orr-Walker, S.M., when James Hardy Smith, labourer, was charged with assaulting a male child under the age of 14 years. Describing the case as one of the worst instances of cruelty he had ever dealt with, Inspector A. S. Bird said that the boy, James Robert Smith, was living with his parents and on Saturday night was in bed with his brother. It was alleged that the boy imitated a rooster, calling out “cock-a-doodle-doo” and the father came in with a piece of rubber and thrashed him unmercifully. The boy had to be taken to hospital and attended by a doctor. “This man must be a brute,” remarked the Inspector. Mr W. A. Cumming, Child Welfare Officer, said he had known accused and his family for some time. On August 28 last the mother brought the boy into the Child Welfare Office to be examined. The boy’s forehead was bruised and he had a cut about half an inch long over his right eye. He said he had been thrashed by his father with a pair of braces. That was the first occasion that it had been reported to the speaker that the father had thrashed the boy. He went up to the home and warned the man that if that behaviour continued he would be reported to the police. Smith told him to go ahead. The boy was bruised from the shoulders down to the buttocks, the skin being broken in places. “In all my experience of 20 years it is the worst case of the kind to come under my notice,” concluded Mr Cumming.

“Bruising Extremely Severe.” Dr. D. Moir, of the Timaru Hospital, said he had examined the child yesterday morning. He appeared to be recovering from shock and was bruised from the shoulder blades down to the thighs. There were livid marks which appeared to have been made with a blunt instrument. “I would say that the bruising was extremely severe—more so than many motor accidents.”

The Magistrate: Would you say that the father had exceeded ordinary, reasonable punishment? —Oh, yes. Accused, who pleaded guilty to the charge, admitted that he had given the boy two or three thrashings but he was particularly difficult to manage. There were eight other children in the family and none of them had ever been thrashed. The boy used to do outrageous things and make a noise at night which prevented the other children from sleeping. It was necessary to do something to allow the others to sleep. It was no use talking to the boy. The Magistrate: I take It he did not permit anyone to sleep much that night.—No. No. He would not after that punishment. Had you had any liquor that night?—l am practically a teetotaller. Inspector Bird: Did you bring any liquor home that night?—Yes. One bottle of beer. I had that early in the evening.

“Only One Punishment.” “I have seen the wounds on the boy myself and I have heard the statements of the doctor and Mr Cumming, and I have heard your statement,” said the Magistrate. “In my opinion there is only one punishment for a man like you and I can’t give it—something of the sort you gave this boy. My limit of punishment is six months’ imprisonment with hard labour, and that is what you get. There are no redeeming features.”