Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price 1d. FRIDAY, APRIL 2, 1886. The Case of J. Marchant Fraser.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume XIX, Issue 1815, 2 April 1886, Page 2

Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price Id. FRIDAY, APRIL 2, 1886. The Case of J. Marchant Fraser.

It is not oar intention to comment npon tbe inquiry which was recently held before the Resident Magistrate with respect to certain charges made by a schoolmaster named Fraser against Constable Darby, until the decision in the case has been given. It is a universal rule in journalism that cases which, are sub judice should not form the subject ol comment. No doubt, when Mr Stratford has given his decision, we shall have something to say concerning all the aspects and features of this very peculiar caie. There are, however, some facts and circumstances connected with the ;osition and conduct of MrJ. Marchant Fraser, as a State schoolmaster, and one placed in a position of authority and responsibility with respect to the sons and daughters of the settlers, who attend the Belvidere School, which it is necessary—having a doe regard for the public good and the morals of the rising generation—should be dealt with at once.

J. Marchant Fraser, during his residence in the Carterton district, has unhappily not borne a character so irreproachable as could be desired in the case of an instructor of youth. In truth, the tastes, habits, pursuits and pleasures of this person have scarcely been befitting to the position and duties of a schoolmaster. J. Merchant Fraser is “ a horsey* man,” who loves to attend race meetings, and bet on the different events Whether Fraser always pays his debts when a loser, we are not exactly prepared to say, but it is significant that he recently declared upon oath in open Court: Marquis of Normanby Hotel on sth December, Mr Buckeridge, the landlord, spoke to me about a bet, and called me a b liar, and struck at me.” It is evident, therefore, that Mr Buckeridge was by no means satis fied with the conduct of Marchant with respect to that particular bet. Then Marchant appears - according to his own showing—to have been iu the habit of hanging about the Carterton hotels at late hours. Merchant describes “ how at one lime he was in the billiard room of the Marquis of Normanby ; how at another time he was ao interested spectator of certain alleged Calcutta sweeps being drawn ; and how at a third time he himself bad imbibed certain drinks late at night in the vicinity of the bar.” It Is true that Marchant may have been prowling through the public rooms of the hotel on all those occasions for the special purpose of acting as a spy and informer, with the view of getting np a series of charges against the local police constable, but with that aspect of the case we will not at present deal. All we desire (o point out is, that it is surely uot right or fitting that a person in charge of a State School should be continually banging abont a hotel late at night, spying, drinking, and looking on at alleged gambling, while lookiug lor evidence, and acting generally, as a sort of “ Peeping Tom ” and “ Sneaking Jerry,” in order that he may get up a case •gainst s police constable who hw ioooned

bis ill-will. Naturally enough the adoption of such aAepicabio rule by Mr Schooimaste Fraser ISmetim. s placed him in a rather ludicrous Md disagreeable predicament. It is the fate ol “ the spy and informer ” to he held in loathing and contempt, and sometimes even Mfteu and kicked. J. Marchaot Fraser onlypfcaped those penalties by running away and hiding himself under a kitchen table. The story of this incident, as told by the redoubtable Fraser himself ami several witnessei of the scrimmage, is irresistably comical. We have seen a good few “ shindies ” in those "days when we loved “ cakes and ale,” and sometimes heard tbe chimes ring out at midnight, but never did we hear so itrange a story as that of the “ scrimmage ” between the bold Ted Bnckeridge and the pusillanimous Marchant Fraser. “ The low,” depones Fraser, “ took place in the Marquis of Normanby Hotel, after ten o’clock at night. Bnckeridge asked me to state what 1 owed him and struck at me. I backed iito tbe kitchen, out of the passage, and came down by the run." It does not appear from Fraser’s story that he was ever struck at all. But when Ted Bnckeridge" went for” the pussillanimous Fraser, the soul of that unhappy pedagogue sank down even into his very boots, and the terror of death came upon him. The mere demonstration of striking on the part of Bnckeridge was enough for Fraser, who instantly executed a masterly strategic move ment of retreat, which ended in his “ coming down by the run ” and finding an inglorious place of refuge and safety under the kitchen table. What an inglorious position was that for the master of the Belvidere School to find himself in? But a witness named Alfred Armstrong adds some further interesting details. He remarks “ Bucketidge and Fraser had some conversation aud quarrelled, and the next thing I saw was Fraser backing into tbe kitchen, where he lay down on the floor and finally get under the table. Mrs Buokeridge then intervened as a peace maker, and took Bnckeridge away. Thereupon Fraser crawled out and got upon his legs again.” Ail this is capital fun. What a wretched poltroon this Fraser must have been to get under the kitchen table before even a blow was struck, and to stay there in abject terror until kindly Mrs Buokeridge took away her husband, and so let the poor quaking dominie have a chance to get off with a whole skin and unbroken bones. Of course all this was very unpleasant for Fraser, but he had himself to blame for getting into such a predicameet. Fraser’s after performance in the Resident Magistrate’s Court, where he gave evidence as an “ informer,” can best be dealt with on a future occasion, when the decision of the Magistrate in the case in question has been given. But there are fat graver matters alleged against this man Fraser than any of those to which we have already adverted. For a considerable time tbe Belvidere School Committee were seriously dissatisfied with the conduct of Fraser, and so ultimately that body held a formal enquiry on the subject. During that enquiry several witnesses gave evidence to the effect that Fraser had confessed, or rather boasted, of the commission of acts of gross immorality. Some of those acts were specified in detail by several witnesses. It is sufficient to say that these details are ol such a nature as to make them unfit'.for publication. Haying heard tbe evidence, the School Committee resolved to get rid of Fraser, aud accordingly gave him a mouth’s notice of discharge. That was a grave blunder on the part of the School Committee. If the Committee were satisfied of grossly immoral conduct on the part of Fraser, they ought to have sum marily discharged him on the spot. Assuming that no "man guilty of gross immorality should be allowed to remain for a single hour in the position of master of a State School. As we write, the Belvidere School Committee is taking further action, and Fraser’s ease is also being brought under the jurisdiction of the Education Board. We do not doubt that between those two public bodies, Fraser will be dealt with according to his deserts, and that measures will be taken to render it no longer possible for a man of his character to hold any position under the educational system of this colony. The masters in our State Schools should be—as they nearly all are—men of pure lives and with no taint on their moral character. To allow a person of Fraser’s stamp to remain in the position of master in a public school would be a scandal and disgrace to the educational system of the colony, and an outrage upon the many able, conscientious, honorable and decent living men and women who constitute that body of State teachers, of which the colony is so justly proud.