THE LOWER HEATHCOTE SCHOOL INQUIRY.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2584, 19 July 1882, Page 4

THE LOWER HEATHCOTE SCHOOL INQUIRY.

This inquiry was resumed yesterday at 10 30 a.vn., before Dr. Giles, Boyal Commissioner. , , . „ Bsv. G-. Wilks, cross-examined by Mr Bamfo’-d —Witness had conversations with Mia M-.iiarg. Mrs Duncan authorised him *o giro her name, and to use it in connection with mr letter. The .-eason he did not give Mr® Dr mean’s name was, because he wan afraiu at Mr Davis might use bis influence to make things disagreeable to Miss Duncan so a puc-il teacher. Witness gave the name to the Board ot Education in the letter which ho said had been ouppressed. In a private and confidential letter to Mr Yeel the witness gave tho names of the parents, and ulso a copy of the letter sent to Mr Davis. In tho letter which was sent on March 20,h, Mr Veel was instructed to give tho names to the Beard if necessary. Mr Teel li:d that letter, because he afterwards alluded to it. The committee was never supplied with the names of the persons alluded to in the letter of March 19th. He never formally made any complaint regarding the chairman to tho committee prior to March i9th. Nearly every day, except Sundry, from the time Mr Davis was elected ohairm: n, ha spent a great deal of time in the school precincts. At this stage MrW.V. Million appeared for Mr Wilks. . _ . Cross-examination continued Mr Davis seemed to have a warm and affectionate way of ehakirg hands with ladies. Witness objected to him abating hands with the pupil teachers. Witness had seen Mr Davis at tho girls’ closet. Ha could not give the date. She first time witness saw him was at eleven o’clock in the day, when the girls were out at reoraali.-.u, [Tho witness here gave evidence concerning the charge ot the chairman being nor.? the girls’ closet] Witness wrote a specimen letter on the black board. _lt referred to the approaching public meeting regarding tho chairman and inviting the parents to attend. It had to be written by the fourth, fifth, and sixth standards. Witness was not aware whether the children took copies of this letter home with them in their books. There were numerous copies of the letter of 19bh March made by the children in tho sixth standard, and distributed among the parents, because Mr Davis had sent it to the Board and witness had been dismissed in eonsequonoo of it. Witness distributed the copies, partly through the school children, bs he looked on it as a school matter. Ho bad no authority from the committee to circulate the letter. [The letter was read, asking the receiver to communicate with Mr Wilks if he ergshe had acy evidence to give ] That was circulated through the children. Another document was folded and given to each child, to be delivered to the parents, and the children were told that it was for their parents. Witness might have read part of that letter to the school. He had read it to Mr Armitago, the assistant master, but not iu school hours. The letter was displayed in a shop window, but witness was not concerned in it being put there. Witness had lent papers containing hie letter to private friends. He had lent papers to the children. He would not swear that he had not read extracts from these papers in the school. He could not remember having clone so. Witness did not write any of the articles or extracts appearing in the papers. At this stage ot (he proceedings, Mr Geo. Harper arrived, and took charge of the cose for Mr Wilks. Examination continued—Tho paper had been circulated amongst private friends. He declined to give the name of the friends to •whom the paper was sent. He could not remember to how many people he showed the paper. To the best ot his belief, he purchased only one copy of the paper. He would not swear that he did not read the paper before the school.

After some argument between Mr_ Harper and the Commissioner ae to the admissibility of evidence regarding Mr Wills’ procedure after the dismissal, Dr. Giles having refused to allow evidence as to Mr Davis’ previous character to be given, the examination was continued —The name ot Philip Hunt is No. 51 on tbo register. Witness wrote the name 44 Bojs’ High School ” over an erasure, as indicating where the boy had gone to. Witness erased the writing previously there at the request of the father. The father told witness that he intended to send the boy to the High School, but he had not done so. Witness knew that Dr. Hunt was a member of tho committee. Witness was not on terms wi‘h Dr. Hunt to ask him where the boy was to be sent. He eaw another entry, 44 Frank Andrews kept at home because Mr Davis was chairman." Witness made the alteration against Philip Hunt’s name subsequent to tho 19th March. He was on nodding terms with Dr. Hunt when the alteration was made. The book Was altered at the house of witness. He had not told the doctor that the alteration had been made. Since the 19th March, to the best of his belief, there had been no complaint against him. Be-examined by Mr Harper Frank Andrews is No. 98 on the register,, and the cause of his leaving was entered as follows —"Kept at home because Mr Davis is ohairmon.” This is in the handwriting of Mr Armilage, the assistant master, and was made by direction of witness on account of verbal instructions received from the father of the boy. Another entry, Bessie Andrews, has opposite to it, 41 Kept at home because Mr Davis is chairman.” The father told witness he would not send the children to tho school while Mr Davis was chairman. The father sought witness out, A lengthy argument ensued between the Commissioner and Mr Harper ns to the admissibility of this evidence. Examination continued There were no works going on at tho time Mr Davis visited the closets. He was not aware that there were alterations made. He now remembered that there were some alterations in progress, but ho oould nob fii’the date. Mr Davis went round alone to the closets.

Isabella Duncan deposed that she was the mother of Kobina Duncan, pupil teacher in the Lower Heatbcote school. She never authorised Mr Wilks to make any complaint against Mr Davis, Mr Wilks came to her on a Sunday afternoon. Mr Wilks of course gave Mr Divia a vary bad character. He esid Mr Davis was coming in and shaking hands with hsr daughter. They had some conversation about Mr Divio. Mr Wilks told me that Mr Davis vrns “ fawning ” over her daughter, and said if she would let him he would put a stop to it. She said that her daughter was but a child, and that she was in Mr Wilks’ charge daring school hours, and he could put a stop to it if be liked. Her daughter had told her that M? D-ivis had shaken hands with her, but no more nor not in a more marked manner than any of the other pupil teachers.

Crass examined by Mr Bamford—Witness never ms-.de any complaint to Mr Wilks. He said before the pupil teachers that he had writien the letter solely on the account of her daughter. It was entirely on what Mr Wilks said that witness told him what she did. Her daughter had never complained to her about Mr Wilks, except what had already been stated. Break, Ws.ii deposed that ho knew Miss Pitoaithley. He had seen Mr Davis in the school twice. He was speaking to the teachers. Ho was not long in the school; about ten minutes. Tho lessons were going on at this I ime, Mr Davis was silting on the deck talking to the teachers. Ho sat sideways on the desk. The teachers wore standing at a table close by. Miss Pitoaithley was standing up and Mr Davis was sitting down. Witness had seen Mr Davis sitting on the desk twice. Ho remained there altogether about ten minutes each time. The lessons want on at the time. The children in the class were writing while Miss Pitoaithley was talking to Mr Davis.

Orctu-examined by Mr Bamford —There were u lot of boys and girls in tho class. There was no other teacher but Miss Pitcailhlcy there at the time.. Mr Wilks asked ■witntss whether he saw Mr Davis speaking to the teachers. This was a little while ago. He hid not said anything lately. It was a gooi while ago since Mr Wilke spoke to him. 3VIr Wilks did not coma into witness’ father’s house to remind him of having to come to the enquiry. It was about twelve o’olook when Mr Daria wac speaking to the teacher. Witness was punished that day for talking. He had not taken any letters round for Mr Wilks. The Commission then adjourned for ■luncheon. On resuming several girls were called os to the charge made against the chairman of going through the closets when the children were there, and also os to that against Mr Davis of talking to the pupil teachers in the school. Annie MoHat&dLoposed to having seen Mr

D-ivis frequently in the schoolroom prtor “to March 19th. He spoke once to wit new during school hours. There was a of verbena on the table, and Mr Davu eaid to witneae " Sweets to the sweet.”

Cross-examined by Mr Bamford —Witness mode no remark ot the time, but two or three days after ehe mentioned it to Miss Duncan. Mr Davis was no stranger to her. She had heard Mr Wilks make remarks on the subject of the dispute between the committee and himself. She could not say what the purport of those remarks wag. Mr Wilks asked the children to stand up who knew anything about Mr Davis giving the verbena. He mentioned several chargee against Mr Davis, and asked those who knew anything about them to stand up. Mr Wilks had done this in connection with the chargee made more than once. Ella Stokes deposed to aaeing Mr Davis talking to Miss Pitcaithlay in the school during recreation time. He was sitting on the desk from ten o’clock till tho children went out for recreation. Cross-examined by Mr Bamford—Miss Calvert and Miss Duncan were present with Miss Pitoaithley. Mr Armitage was also in the same room. By Dr. Giles —Miss Pitcaithley would talk now and then to Mr Davis during the time she was giving lessons to the class. W. O. Armitage, the assistant master of the school, deposed to seeing Mr Davis in tho school frequently prior to the 19th March. Witness saw him frequently about the school premises, and had seen him in the schoolroom talking to Miss Calvert and Mias MoHarg, Ho was ther. the greater part of the dinner hour. There was nothing extraordinary in the conduct of Mr Davis, nor improper. Cross-examined by Mr Bamford—Mr Wilks said that the girls had made up their minds that it Mr Davis came again they would out his curls off. He then asked those who said it to staad up. One of the girls said she had said so to another of the pupils. Mr Davis was not inside the enclosure of the closets. Bobina Duncan deposed that in March last she was a pupil teacher in the school. Before the middle of March she saw Mr Davis very frequently iu the school. He was generally there for about half a day. Mr Davis used to talk to tho witness, and also shake hands with her. Ho never called witness by any other name than her own. Mr Davis was not intimate with thefamily. Cross-examined by Mr Bamford—Witness never made any complaint to her parents about Mr Davis. He used to shako bands with her when he came in the morning, and with the other lady teachers as well. Mr Wilks was present once when Mr Davis shook hands with witness, Mr Wilks did not shako hands often with witness. He never objected to witness shaking hands with Mr Davis till after the letter was written to Mr Davis dated March 191 h. He then told witness that she was not to shako hands with Mr Davis. Mr Wilks addressed the children concerning the dispute, and read some of the charges in the printed paper. He asked the children what they had seen, and told those who knew anything about tho matter to eland up. He said before the pupil teachers that the mother ot witness had authorised him to write the letter of 19th March. Witness had copied out a petition for Mr Wilks. It was done with her own free will.

Mr Harper said that this was all the evidence he proposed to call. Mr Bamford said that what was intended was that the committee would answer the charges made. Dr. Giles asked whether Mr Bamford intended to tender his evidence. He was not prepared to call tho chairman unless he tendered his evidence. Mr Bamford eaid ho intended to call the infant mistress to rebut the statements made.

Mr Harper eaid that he should like to know what they had to meet. Mr Bamford said ho intended to prove that Mr Wilks had been lecturing the children, and, in fact, coaching them up in the case.

The Commission adjourned at 4 p.m. t? 10.80 a.m. to day.