THE DUE BACK CASE OVER AGAIN.

Dunstan Times, Issue 1169, 25 July 1884, Page 4

THE DUE BACK CASE OVER AGAIN.

At the Mavylebone (London) Police Court on May 22nd, Henry Combes, head master of the Truro street Board ■School, Haverstock Hill, appeared in answer to an adjourned summons charging him with having assaulted Arthur Edwsrd Lauri, of 13 Malden crescent, on the 29th April. The alleged assault consisted of a severe beating said to have been administered by the defendant in consequence of some untruths he had told about tayopence which he had found, md owing to this treatment the boy’s body was dis--colored, and he was unwell for several days’ The complainant, a lad eight .years and a-balf old, was recalled, and stated that an injury to his ear was inflicted by Mr Combes boxing his fears. In crossing examination the lad ■-said that this injury was mentioned to tho Committee, but the father was •unable to say that that was the case, though he stated that he complained of the assault generally. Patrick Mac donuell, a School Board visitor, said that he met the boy, who was crying, and his father on the day in question, and the father showed him the boy’s body, which was discolored and sti iped oil over, as if from a very severe beating.—Mr John Edward Twinge, chief clerk of tho Marylebone Divisional Office of the School Boardl to whom the child was first brought, expressed the opinion that the injuries indicated excessive severity.—Mr Pain (defem* dant’s solicitor) called for the punishment book of the school, in which the head-master made entries of the various punishments he inflicted. The entry referring to the complainant’s case was to the effect that the boy was chastised at the request of his parents for persistently telling untruths. To this entry Mr Pilcher, the chairman of the Local Management Committee, had appended a remark that the punishment was “excessive in reality.” —Margaret Laurie, mother of the boy, explained the condition in which her son was sent home from school, and emphatically denied that she ever requested the defendant to punish him. fehe said that when she went to the school she was told that the child had twopence in his pocket, which it was surmised he bad stolen, and she replied that if he had been guilty of the theft his father would chastise him.—For the defence Sir Edmund H. Currie and Mr Mark Wilks gave the defen. dant a high character for ability and humanity extending over several yeais, and expressed the opinion that he was quite incapable, of treating any child ■'mb cruelty.-—Mr Giles Pilcher, who made the entry in the defendant’s punishment book, was of opinion that the punishment inflicted upon the child was “ rather excessive,” but not brutal. He added that he should not have made the entry if he had supposed that the matter would ever come before a .Court. Thu Committee were never told about anything about the injuries to the boy’s head and ear.—Fanny Combes, daughter of the defendant, and a teacher in hischool, said that the boy made various statements as to the twopence he had found, and she sent him to her father The boys mother told her that if he persisted in telling untruths he must be chastised. It was afterwards dis-

covered that the twopence had not been taken out of the cupboard, an was at first suspected.—Mr Cooke (stipen diary Magistrate) said that it wa<, no doubt, very important that a schoolmaster should not be deprived of his proper authority to punish sohola s tor school offences. The law was perfectly clear upon that point, hut punishmeuf. must be administered prudently. patiently, and after full inquiry. A master had no right to beat a child to get from him what he wished to know, and the defendant undoubtedly did so on tt>e ©occasion. He quite agreed with the member of the Committee who said that the punishment was “ rather excessive,” and considering the boy’s age, he thought it very excessive. He must,’therefore, impose a nominal fine of 20s, with J,2 2s costs. — 1 Standard.’