ACTION AGAINST A SCHOOL TEACHER.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 383, 7 April 1902, Page 3

ACTION AGAINST A SCHOOL TEACHER.

Paoroa, Saturday,

Tho following judgmont was delivered j by Sir Bush, S.M., in a case heard last Court day, and which is of importance to school teachers:— “ Gibbs v. Walters.—This is an action for assault. Defendant is the head teacher of the Hikutaia Public School, and the plaintiff is one of the pupils attending school. Plaintiff, being a minor, sues for £2O damages, with his father as next friend. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows : The teacher had a school rule . enjoining the boys and girls, to bathe separately, and separato bathing places were appointed. On the 26th February the plaintiff, his sister, a girl guest, and two other little girls were discovered by the teacher bathing together at another place in tho river near the home of the plaintiff. For this breach of the rule the five children next morning were caned by the teacher. Xho punishment inflicted on plaintiff is the assault complained of, for which the damages, £2O, are claimed. Tho mother in her evidence stated that on tho 26th February she at dinner time '' gave the children permission to go for a bathe after school, but the girls were first to gather some fruit and the boy (the plaintiff) was to go from school to tho post-office for the mail. Having done that, he could bathe also. Tho mother of plaintiff also deposed that she had lived at her present residence nearly 12 years, and the children had been in the habit of bathing there for several years during the warm season, and she frequently bathed with them. The mother also stated in evidence that one of the little girls told her that afternoon that she (the girl) had seen tho teacher, who told her he would mako it warm for them next day for bathing together. The children in consequence were frightened to go to ' school, and the mother of plaintiff gavo the girl a note to the teacher stating that j : they were bathing with her permission. ; This note the teacher declined to considor. - The evidence as to the severity of the punishment is very contradictory. For i tho defendant it is contended that there

i are only three issues involved: Ist, had 1 tho schoolmaster authority to inflict this | punishment? 2nd, was the punishment j excessive?.3rd, if he had no authority, 1 and the punishment was excessive, what ; are tho damages to which the plaintiff ij is entitled ?__ll was argued that the masif ter had authority, as the pupil v.'aS\undor his authority, qntil be reached home, and ■ | that the punishment was trivial. The 2 cases of Hansen and' Cole, 9 N55.L.8.; ■ Hunter v. Johnston, 13 Q.B.D. 225 ; and Cleary v. Booth, Q.8.D., vol. 1,1893, were relied upon in support of tho defendant. No doubt the defendant’s desire to promote the morals of his pupils is most commendable and worthy of every support from the School Committee and the parents of the children, but unfortunately for him in this instance he appears to have acted unwisely and hastily in punishing the children. Had he had the courtesy to accept and peruse the mother's note, the explanation would probably have been sufficient to excuse the two Gibbs children from punishment. As it is, I must hold that under the circumstances of this case the defendant had no authority to chastise the plaintiff, and judgment must be in his favor. Judgment for jlamtiS foil £5 costs,"