TEACHER AND PUPIL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 8334, 5 June 1905, Page 3

TEACHER AND PUPIL.

THE QUESTION OF COEPORAL

PUNISHMENT

At the Magistrate's Court this morning, before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., Walter Haden claimed £10 from A.

Brairiley, damages on account of corporalspuhishment inflicted on plaintiff's daiighsjßr by the defendant, schoolmaster' at Prebbleton, at whose school tne child had beu a pupil. Mr Hobah appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Stringer for the defendant. Mr Hoban said that the case was merely brought to ascertain whether or not the child could be' sent to the Prebbleton School without having to undergo corporal punishmeut, which was alleged to be detrimental to her health. The question of damages did not enter into the case, which was brought to determine whether the schoolmaster 'had acted with sufficient discretion, or was justified in punishing the child after receiving a letter from the father requesting him not to do so.

Walter Haden, father, of Annie Dorothy Haden, aged thirteen and a half years, stated that he sent his child to the Prebbleton School with a letter to Mr Brarnley, requesting him not to administer corporal punishment, on account of the doctor's recommendation that such punishment would be detrimental to her health. Witness afterwards saw Bramley, and explained that he did not jvant the child punished on any condition. On February 14 witness again wrote to Bramley requesting him to discontinue giving the child home lessons.' On March 10 the child came home, and. complained that she had been punished. Witness then wrote to Bramley,' asking waat punishment had been inflicted. No reply had been received. Oh account of the punishment the doctor had given witness a certificate that the child would be better physically if she were not sent to school. Witness aleo wrote to the School Committed and received a certificate of exemption signed by the chairman. Witness had previously sent children to the school, but had had to take them away on account of the treatment meted- out to them by Bramley, who had been reprimanded by the School Committee in consequence. Sinoe obtaining the certificate witness had been proceeded against foi\ not sending his child to school. *

James Cboke, M.D., Lincoln, gave evidence as to the state of the child's health. This closed the case for the plaintiff.

Mr Stringer a.rgued that the teacher had power to inflict corporal punishment, and that he was quite justified in doing so in order to preserve order and discipline, provided the punishment was not excessive.

A. Bramley, headmaster of the Prebbleton School, stated that when he took over the school about three years ago it was in a lax state of discipline. He denied that he had ever been reprimanded in connection with Haden'e children. On March 10 he had given a certain easy spelling lesson, and the pupils had been given good tipae in which to finish It. Several Jof .the children had been inattentive #»& careless, and had received one stjp&S^each on the hand. Had he made any" distinction be+ween the ; children they would all have lost confidence in him.

The Magistrate, in giving judgment, said it was a most important point as to whether corporal punishment was necessaiy to the conduct of schools. He liad no sentiment about the matter ; fact, in that Court he had told parents that the only course open to them was to inflict corporal punishment; but it was entirely another matter whether, in the ordinary carrying out of school routine, it was necessary to inflict corporal punishment. He did not wiph. to lay down his opinions against those who differed from him, but it seemed to him utterly absurd for a teacher to come into Court and say that he could only teach spelling by the strap. The question was, whether the schoolmaster was justified in inflicting corporal punishment at all, in the face of the letter from the father. He had no hesitation in saying he was not justified, and if he could not conduct hifi school properly %ithou / t punishment, he had no right to allow the child to attend the school without an appeal to : r -the School Committee to define the position in the face of the letter. The father was perfectly justified in haying protected the best interests of his child, lit the ajchpol could not be run without ;tlie infliction of corporal punishment, the proper qojurse would . have hfen to expel the child. Under the circumstances the plaintiff -was entitled to recover 40s and costs.