WAIPAWA.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3169, 25 August 1881, Page 3

WAIPAWA.

(FHOM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.) August 24, 1881. The much-talked-of .cases, Victor v. Fraser, Johnson v. Fraser, and Fraser v. Johnson, the grounds of which have already been ventilated through your columns, were heard to-day at Waipawa before a Bench of Juatiees, and created intense interest, the Court being crowded to inconvenience the whole day. The first information heard was that laid by a Frenchman named Paul Victor against Mr Fraser, as echoolmaeterof the district school, for unlawfully assaulting and beating his eon August, aged nine years. After a number of witnesses were examined, including pupils and assistant teachers belonging to the school, and that of the boy's father and a medical practitioner, the Bench found that undue severity had been used by the defendant

in inflicting punishment upon the boy, taking the fact into consideration that the boy was of delicate constitution ; but the Bench was of opinion that the offence was one more within the jurisdiction of the School Committee than a Court of Justice, and consequently dismissed the information, each party to pay hi 3 own costs. According to tbe medical and other testimony produced, it appeared that the beating indicted upon the boy was so severe aa to compel him to keep his bed some little time (two days, at least, after receiving it). The second charge, preferred by Mr B. B. Johnson against the same defendant as above, was in many respects very similar to the former case, and a like finding was recorded by the Court. The latter offence was alleged to have been committed on the 9ih of August, and the former on the 4th May last. In the decision in Johnson's case, the Chairman of the Bench said that there was no doubt but that the punishment of children in the Waipawa school had been more severe than was necessary, especcially for minor offences, and wished this to be fully understood. An information, laid by Mr Johnson against Mr Fraser, for insulting language calculated to lead to a breach of the peace, was quashed on the objection being urged by Mr Lascelles, counsel for defendant, that the alleged insulting language had not been made use of in a public place within the meaning of the Act (viz., Vagrant Act). A like fate attended the charge Fraser v. Johnson, for unlawfully assaulting and beating complainant, Mr Guy (solicitor for defendant) having pointed out that the information was wrongly laid. The last information heard was one laid under tbe " Hawke's Bay Education Act, 1877," Fraser v. Johnson, for that defendant did enter the school at Waipawa while plaintiff was in charge, and did therein create a breach of the said Act by causing a disturbance, and abusing the teacher. The master's evidence was first taken. The result of the voluminous evidence taken in the case would amount simply to this : That defendant's sou had been shown in a former case as beaten with undue severity by the plaintiff, and that the defendant, naturally enough feeling deeply agrieved in consequence, proceeded to remove his other children from the school forthwith. In doing so it would eeem he was further aggravated by tbe conduit of the school teacher (Mr Fraser), and losing his temper somewhat had created a slight disturbance. The Bench took those extenuating circumstances fully into account, and decided to fine defendant one shilling, each party to pay his own costs, the decision was received with universal eatisfactien by those present in Court. A charge of assault, between the same plaintiff and defendant, was withdrawn by Mr Fraser's solicitor. Messrs R. Harding (chairman) and li. Wilding were the presiding Justices.