PARENTS FINED

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXII, Issue 19433, 20 October 1925, Page 11

PARENTS FINED

FOR FAILING TO SEND CHILDREN TO SCHOOL. PROSECUTIONS BY ATTENDANCE OFFICER. Messrs C. L. Duigan and E. Liffiton, J.P’s presided over a sitting of the Court yesterday morning, when the attendance officer of the Education Department, Mr. C. Skinner, proceeded against a number of parents for failing to send their children regularly to school. An Irate Mother. “The boy sells papers,” remarked Mr. Skinner when referring to the first case on the list, but 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 be 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 lam the mother. I committed bigamy when I got married. How do you like that? That is something for you! The child was kept home for its health, any way. The Bench: In that ease you should get a certificate of exemption. The Lady: Who is going to pay for it—the Government? The Bench: I am afraid that we will have to fine you. The Lady: Well, fine me. It’s the only option you’ve got. (Sotto voce to the attendance officer: “You ought to go back to the dog tax!”) The constable on duty: Silence in the Court! The Bench: A fine of ss. The lady departed abruptly. Milk Run Affects 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 the 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 ihe gave him a day off. The Bench observed that he should I give the boy the benefit of any education that he could get. Mr. Skinner considered it was not fair to the child, and ho was not fit to do his school work. The Bench: That is at the parents’ discretion, and we cannot do anything. A fine of Os. and costs was imposed. Poor Father of Ten. - The third case that 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 ho earned over £lO a I 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 could be done for the children. The Father: They will not be neglectI ed. 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: I don’t know why you should pry into my affairs. Mr. Skinner: The welfare of the eh.il-

dren is the first thing. That is why this case was brought. The Father: I resent your remarks about hotels. Mr. Skinner: You spend a great deal of your money in drink. The Father: That is what you say! Mr. Skinner: It doesn’t want much proof to know it. The Father: Well, one boy will bo 14 in a fortnight, and I 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 boy 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 of a lad named “Teddy” failed to put in an appearance, but intimated that “Teddy stayed away.” After the attendance officer had given particulars of the lapse, the penalty was fixed at ss. and costs.