Resident Magistrate's Court. BALCLUTHA.

Clutha Leader, Volume IV, Issue 207, 28 June 1878, Page 5

Resident Magistrate's Court. BALCLUTHA.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) Wednesday, June 26, 1878.

Brooks v. Jolly. — Mr Reid for plaintiff, and Mr Taylor for defendant.

His Worship now read the following ' judgment: — This is an information by the father of a boy, a scholar in a public school, 'against the master of the school for an assault and battery upon his son. Mr Taylor made a preliminary objection that the information being laid by the father in behalf of his son, it is required by j section 6 of the Justice of the Peace Act, ! 1866, that the information should have been authorised by the son in writing. It appears to me in reading the section referred to together with section 39 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1867, that there. are two ways in which proceedings could have been commenced by the father. He could have laid an information upon written authority in the name of his son, in which case the son would have been the informant, or he could take the course he has adopted of laying an information in his own name, in which case he is himself the informant, although in behalf of his son, and requires no written authority. With regard to the facts, the boy says that he was beaten and hurt, and marks were left on his back, and there is evidence of other witnesses who examined his back who say that from the marks and bruises they found they judge the beating to have been very severe. The defendant himself admits the beating, and says it was severe, but not more so than was necessary, and his defence is that the boy was disobedient and impudent, and that the defendant was justified in correcting him for it. It is said to be a good defence in law to prove that an alleged battery was merely the correcting of a scholar by his master, provided that the correction be moderate in the manner, the instrument, and the quantity of, it. There can be no doubt, from the evidence, that the boy was disobedient and impudent to defendant, and his manner while in the witness-box was sufficient to show that he must be difficult . and very trying to manage, but all this would not justify a beating with that degree of severity used, j leaving, as has beenprpved; Tmarks on the boy's 7 back a; fortnight 7after'the.7puriish-j ment: was^'m^

proved to- have been immoderate, and therefore the defendant is convicted ; but in measuring the penalty; I take into consideration that it appears to me the defendant's severity did not arise in this case from cruelty of disposition. There was no severity in the punishment first intended. The boy rebelled time after time, and the defendant seems to have acted under a mistaken . belief that he could ment obstinacy with severity, and could properly increase his severity to tho extent required to conquer the boy's obstinacy. If it had appeared that the excessive beating resulted from intentional cruelty or from angry passion the penalty would have been a heavy, one, but as it is I think the case is met by a fine of 20s, and costs of Cwurt lis 6d, witnesses' expenses 40s (to be paid on or before the 3rd July, 1878), or in default three days' imprisonment in H.M. Gaol.

G. F. Mitchell v. Rayvnes. — Charge of throwing down a gate on the 13th inst. , thereby then doing injury to the said G. F. Mitchell to the amount of ss. Mr Taylor for plaintiff, and Mr Henderson for defendant. Adjourned for a week.

C. HOG& V. G. F. MITCHELIi and D, Mitchell. — Charge of assault. Mr Henderson for plaintiff, and Mr Taylor for defendants. This case was also adjourned for a week.

Rattray v. Rattray. — This was an application for a protection order on the ground of cruelty. Mr Henderson for plaintiff, and Mr Taylor for defendant. Adjourned by consent for 14 days.