PARENTS FINED.

Thames Star, Volume LIX, Issue 16626, 23 October 1925, Page 7

PARENTS FINED.

CHILDREN NOT AT SCHOOL. PROSECUTIONS BY OFFICER. Messrs C. L. Duigan and E. Liffiton, J.P.’s presided over a sitting of the Wanganui Magistrate’s Court, when tin* attendance officer of the Education Department, Mr. C. Skinner, proceeded against a number of parents for failing to send their children regular I v to school. AN IRATE MOTHER, “The boy sells papers,” remarked Mr. Skinner when referring to the first case on the list, hut this assertion met | with a. firm denial by the mother of ■ the child in question. She added that perhaps the inspector sold papers himself, and inferred that he ought to bo back on the dog tax collecting. The attendance officer went on to state that the child had been present 143 occasions out of 213. The Bench: Why is she sued?. The Lady: Because I am the mother. I committed bigamy when I got married. How do you like that! That is something for you; The child was kept homo for its health, any way. The Bench : I n that case you should get a- certificate of exemption. The Lady: Who is going to pay for At—tlie G overmnent? Tlie Bench : I am afraid that we will have to fine you. The Lady: Well .fine me. It’s tlie only option you’ve got. (Sotto voce to the attendance officer- “You ought to go hack to the dog tax!”) The constable on* duty: Silence in the Court! The Bench : A fine of 5./-.

The lady departed abruptly. Mi lav it UN A FFECTS CHILD’S EDUCATION. The next case concerned, a boy of 10 years of age, who had to get up at 4.30 o’clock in tne morning to deliver milk. The inspector said that there was a great deal of the milk delivery business in Wanganui. The father of the lad pointed out that his son got home at 9.30 a.m. after completing his round, and he was so tired he gave him a day off. The Bench observed that he should give the boy the benefit of any education that lie could get. Mr. Skinner considered it was not fair to the child, and he was not fit to do his school work. The Bench: That is at the parents’ discretion, and we cannot do anything. A fine of G/s and costs was imposed. POOR FATHER OF TEN. The third case thjit figured on the list had been mentioned by the Labour candidate recently, who intimated that he would do all in his power to prevent a conviction. Mr. Skinner said that the father was a chimneysweep, who openly boasted in hotels that he earned over £lO a week. It was a very sad case, as far as the children were concerned. There were ten, and the mother was dead Two boys, aged 12 and 13 respectively, were only in Standard HI. The object of the prosecution was to see if anything coukl be done for the children.

The Father: They will not be ncglected. The inspector is putting it in pretty rough! The attendance officer said that if children were fit to play about the streets they were fit to go to school. One of the boys showed signs of neglect. The Father: 1 don’t know why you should pry into my affairs. Mr. Skinner: The welfare of the children is the first thing. That is why this case was brought. Mr. Skinner: You spend a great deal of your money in drink. Tlie Father, Well, one boy will be 14 in a fortnight, and 1 will take him away from school. That will stop all these arguments. The Bench suggested .that the father should do his best to try and give the hoy a chance to fit him for, life, and pointed out> that if children were not encouraged to go to school they would not get educated. As in the previous case a fine was imposed. The parents cf a lad named “Teddy failed to put in an appearance, but intimated that “Teddy stayed away.” After -the attendance officer had given p.ariculars of the lapse, the penalty was fixed at 5/- and costs.