COUNTRY SCHOOL INQUIRY

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLV, Issue 21095, 22 July 1938, Page 7

COUNTRY SCHOOL INQUIRY

Telegrams Sent to Board Claim for £lOOO Damages Jury Finds for Defendant An inquiry by two members of the Canterbury Education Board into alleged misbehaviour on the part of two pupils of the Mona Vale School in 1935 was recalled in the Timaru Supreme Court yesterday, when an action was brought for damages amounting to £lOOO against the then chairman of the Mona Vale School Committee. The plaintiff was David Chisholm, an Infant suing by his father James Chisholm, of Ma Waro, fanner, and the defendant William Roy Davison, of Ma Waro, farmer. After a short retirement the jury found for defendant. Mr A. D. Mcßae appeared for the plaintiff, defendant being represented by Mr W. D. Campbell. The jury was as follows: Messrs Verdon M. Collins (foreman), E. J. Melrose, George W. Johnston, Thomas C. Begg, Arthur N. Crulckshank, James A. Neilson, George E. Martin, John Morrow, William Davidson, Francis G. Sheed, George Howard and Albert E. Bird. The plaintiff claimed that on September 25, 1935, the defendant falsely and maliciously wrote and published of the plaintiff in a telegram addressed to the Canterbury Education Board the words: “Parents urge Board inquiry serious misbehaviour pupils matter urgent" and "charges against two boys interfering with girls.” As a result the plaintiff, David Chisholm, had been greatly injured in his reputation and had been brought into odium, ridicule and contempt. The plaintiff claimed £lOOO as damages. The defence denied the allegations of malice and injury and claimed that the words were written and published bona fide and without malice on a privileged occasion. The words were telegraphed by defendant in his capacity as chairman and secretary of the committee to a superior educational authority and were true in substance and fact. Evidence of Father James Chisholm, father of plaintiff, a resident of the Mona Vale district for 34 years and one of the original settlers, said that he had been a member of the Mona Vale School Committee for 10 years before 1928. Defendant was appointed chairman of the committee in 1929. Miss Mona Reilly was appointed sole teacher at the school in 1932, and Davison was then chairman. In 1935, 23 school children were attending the school. Miss Reilly resided at the home of Davison. On Sunday, September 22, 1935, Davison called at witness’s home in the morning for the first time for years. They had been good friends but had not been on calling terms. Davison said he had come to see about “this inquiry,” witness asking “what inquiry?” and adding: “I think it would have been better for the teacher to shut her mouth and never start such a thing.” Davison kept on repeating that he could not settle the matter and witness said: “Make her shut her mouth. That is all that is wanted." Witness advi ed Davison to see a neighbouring school committee chairman. Davison repeated that he could not settle the matter and said he would get the Board to come down and hold an Inquiry. Witness's son was not mentioned during the conversation and there was no suggestion about a charge or complaint about the boy’s conduct. Witness told Davison that the teacher had thrashed his boy. On the previous Thursday witness took his boy out of the school. Davison told him that he would stop the teacher from assaulting the boy and the boy returned to the school on the Monday. Davison called again on Saturday night and witness went across to the school on the Monday morning when he knew that two Board member., were present. “I went over to defend my kid because the teacher had assaulted him," said witness, who added that his boy had been charged with nothing. Questioning the relevancy of the evidence, his Honour said he could not allow his court to be used for an appeal against the Board's finding at the inquiry. Mr Campbell contended that the case against defendant closed with the despatch of the telegrams. After the Inquiry Witness said he saw Davison after the inquiry and asked him why he had not told witness that his son would be charged with serious allegations and Davison replied: “How could I settle a thing like thet?" Witless told Davison that he would have to get a further inquiry to give witness a chance of making a deience. He considered that ills boy had been unjustly treated. Replying to Mr Campbell, witness said that he went across to the school not knowing what the Board members were there for. He knew as a result of what he had been told that there had been some trouble at the school. Mr Campbell: Davison made no mention about the conduct of the boys towards the girls at school?—No. He just blathered away about nothing?—Yes. ■ You did not say that you had heard all about the trouble?—No. You did not say: “Look here Davison that is out of your hands; it is a matter for the Board; get that Board as quickly as you can?”—No. Did he say: “You know what it means to you if the Board is brought in?*'—No. Witness said that the chairman of the Education Board told him the result of the finding, and witness told Davison that he ought to put the matter right. It would be a deliberate lie to say that witness had told anyone connected wl.h the school committee that he was satisfied with the result of the inquiry “I want only justice for my boy,”

I said witness, when he began a statement, to be told by his Honour that he could not make speeches. Thrashing Recommended Ann Marion Chisholm, wife of the plaintiff, said that Miss Reilly brought ! David home on the morning of September 16 and said that he had been a naughty boy and she would like the boy's father to give him a thrashing. Nothing more was said other than “David had been offered Cd to catch a girl.” Mr Campbell: Did you not know what the Board members later came to the district for?—No. His Honour: What did you think they come for?—To see about complaints. I had an idea it might be a complaint about my boy. Mr Campbell: When Davison called at you’re home and told you about the inquiry did you not burst into tears and say that you were glad as your boy would be cleared? —No. Mr Mcßae: The complaint the teacher made was that your boy was offered 6d to catch one of the girls?— Yes. Was there any further allegation?— None whatever. At this stage Mr Campbell asked his Honour to direct the jury to return a verdict for plaintiff or give him leave to move later that the plaintiff be nonsuited or judgment entered for defendant. The grounds were that the occasion was one of privilege; there was no evidence that anyone, even the Board members, would know that the telegram referred to any particular boy; that there was no evidence of malice. Mr Campbell explained in outlining the defence that the teacher could not be called as she now had a position in Samoa. He contended that the chairman of the committee had acted only in accordance with the provisions of the Education Act in referring the matter to the Board. Defendant in Box Defendant said that during September, 1935, Miss Reilly reported misbehaviour on the part of boys at the school towards girls. He interviewed the father of one of the girls concerned and was told that he had heard of no trouble at the school. Witness asked the father to interview the daughter before witness did anything in the matter. The father later told witness that there was something in it. Witness interviewed Chisholm on a Sunday morning and Chisholm told him that he had heard all about the trouble. Witness said that the father of the other boy concerned was prepared to take the ruling of the committee. Chisholm said: “Look here Davison, this is much too big a job -or you. Get the Board as quickly as you can.” Chisholm was convinced that he wanted nothing but the Board. Witness could see as a result of Chisholm’s attitude that his task was hopeless and that the matter was one for the Board. He called the committee together and received a report on the matter from the teacher, in which she said that the parents of one of the girls wanted to have one of the boys concerned expelled. The committee decided that it was a matter entirely for the Board and witness, as secretary, telegraphed the Board next morning as follows: “Parents urge Board inquiry serious misbehaviour pupils matter urgent.” The Board replied: “Please forward at once full particulars charges against pupils.” Witness then replied: “Charges against two boys interfering i with girls.” The Board’s reply to that was: "Thompson (chairman) and Armitage (member) will hold inquiry conduct pupils Monday about 11 a.m. only teacher committee parents of children concerned and children t be present.”

On the following Saturday, said witness, he saw Mrs Chisholm and told her that the Board members were arriving on the Monday. Mrs Chisholm, who was carrying wood, said: That’s a good job. I’m pleased the Board are coming, Davey will get justice. He would not have got justice from the school committee.” The chairman of the Education Board and a member of the Board conducted the inquiry. Witness was not present at the inquiry and had no part in the finding.

To Mr Mcßae: Miss Reilly had been boarding at his home the major part of the time she was at the school. Miss Reilly had said she had seen the boy Chisholm misbehaving himself. Mr Mcßae: Are you positive you were not present at the inquiry? 1 put it to you that you were at the school, which comprises one room, while the inquiry was being conducted?—l was in the room.

Why did ycu tell Mr Campbell you were net theie?—l must have overlooked it at the time. Have you seen any evidence of impropriety amongst th* boys and girls at the school?—None whatever. Did you think there was anything in the charges?—l had an open mind in the matter. You w’ill probably admit that the children might play and romp without having any evil intention?—Quite easily. Is it possible to put a wrong and evil construction on what rre boyish or girlish pranks?—lt is possible. You will conclude that Mr Chisholm is a respected member of the Ma Waro community?- Nothing more than respected. Boys and girls attending the school are frequently at his home?—Not too frequently. Were not both ,’irls at Chisholm’s home before the inquiry?—l do not know. Witness swore that the minutes relating to the meeting of the committee were recorded at the time of the meeting. At the inquiry Cbisholm was called in when required and the boy came in with his father, I” e inquiry lasted about two hours. Chisholm saw him a day or two after the inquiry and said: “I admire you; you neither said one word for or against the boy.” He was positive that Chisholm had not approached him about reopening the inquiry. If there had been fresh evidence suggesting that an injustice had been done he would have asked that the inquiry be reopen°d. He had ignored letters from solicitors during the last two years and had made ro effort to have the Inquiry reopened. Mr Mcßae: Why not?—Not until my hand was forced. Did you feel disposed to remedy a wrong if a wrong had been done?—By all means. I communicated with the Board for advice after , receiving a solicitor’s letter. Do you think now that the suspicions of the teacher were exaggerated? —No.

I Did you hear the charges denied at I the inquiry?—Yes, by the boys but not I the girls. Do you know that one of the girls I denied that young Chisholm had done anything to her?—Not to my knowledge. It is understandable in a small community that there should be friction between neighbours?—Certainly. Direction From Board At this stage Mr Campbell produced the letter the committee received from the Board after the inquiry which was to the effect that both boys were guilty of the offences and unless their conduct met with the approval of the teacher, Miss Reilly had the Board’s authority to impose a penalty of suspension for a period of not more than three months. Replying to Mr Campbell witness said that following receipt of a solicitor's letter he communicated with the Education Board for advice. He was informed by letter by the chairman of the Board that Chisholm had waited on the Appointments Committee of the Board, after which it decided to adhere to the original decision which was the adoption of the report submitted by the members who held the inquiry. The matter was out of his (witness’s) hands, the letter continued, and the committee could do no good by meeting Chisholm unless they were assured I that some fresh evidence was forthcoming. Addressing the jury, Mr Campbell submitted that the actions of his client had been in accordance with the laws of the land; that he had not selected any particular boy in his telegram and that he had shown no malice. In his address to the jury Mr Mcßae submitted that the boy had not been suspended by the teacher and there was no need for the committee to have called in the Board. In examination in chief Davison had told his counsel that he was not present at the inquiry, but later admitted that he had been. In view of the denial and subsequent admission the jury should carefully scrutinise the whole of Davison’s evidence. It was a small country school and the matter had been grossly exaggerated. His Honour pointed out that the question of whether or not the boy was a naughty boy was not at issue. “Some Form of Apology” “I feel, gentlemen, that you are entitled to some form of apology for having been brought here to deal with this matter,” said his Honour, in summing up, to the jury, “but plaintiff has elected to bring it and I and you must deal with it as a serious and proper case.” He explained the law in the matter and said that the parents were so obviously in earnest over what a small child of 11 was supposed to have been reported to the Education Board for, that they had lost their sense of proportion. The unfortunate and considerate parents of the child believed that he was unjustly charged and held guilty and had been trying for some time to get some appeal on a matter, which if they had any sense, they would have dropped at the time. They at last found a solicitor to bring an action because the chairman of the committee had done no more than ask the Board to conduct an inquiry. It appeared that the schoolmistress took

the child to his home and suggested that he should be whipped by the father and that would have been the most sensible and wholesome thing to do. The stupid parents, however, thought that the boy could do no wrong and forced the issue. The children were only young and the trouble had been stopped at the time without punishment. The parents should then have let the matter drop. The jury retired to consider questions submitted to them, and returned after an absence of 10 minutes with the following answers:— Did the defendant publish the words complained of?—Yes. Were the words published falsely?— No. Were the words published malicously?—No. Were the words as published capable of being understood by those to whom they were published as defamatory of the plaintiff?—No. Were the words as published in fact understood by those to whom they were published as defamatory of the plaintiff?—No. Were the words published true in substance and in fact?—Yes. Judgment was entered for defendant with costs according to scale, witnesses expenses and disbursements to be fixed by the registrar. Costs amounting to £lO/10/- were also allowed defendant on the interrogatory proceedings.