SCHOOL DISCIPLINE.

King Country Chronicle, Volume III, Issue 174, 19 July 1909, Page 5

SCHOOL DISCIPLINE.

Aa Interesting Case* At the Te Kuiti Magistrate* Coort on Friday last Mr E. A. Power, headnwater of Te Kuiti school was charged with) assaulting a bey named Alfred James Ptier. Mr Sharpies appeared for ioformant. the father of the boy, snd Mr Finfay. instructed by Messrs Watts and Broadfcot. defended. Mr Sharpies in cpsning the case for the informant detailed the facts as they were given to htm. in going born* from School on June 24th. while playing along the road scattered some mud over the fence and raits of a bouse. and in consequence was flogged by the master next da?. In order to simplify matters Mr Sharpies said he would admit the master's authority to punfofr- A point which he wished to orye upon the Bench, however, was that In all cases of correction the punishment should fit the offence. Frederick James Plier. father of the boy. said he knew of the punishment to the boy on the 246 h. Ncxi if ay about noon he examined the boy. Tbs examination revealed that the boy bad been (logged on the back and buttocks. The left buttock was like a piece of liver Witness showed the boy to Messrs Sims, chairman. Ditticsr. Nicholson, and Chitcott. members of the School committee; also to f>r Follerton and Constable Mathew. The discoloration tasted to July Sth. The boy showed signs of soreness for some time, and was kept away from school. The punishment was greater than witness would have administered. To Mr Fin lay: The skin was slightly broken. Would say the boy could not p*ay hockey qr football considering the state he was in. Alfred James Ptier said he was 1jears old. He admitted splashing mud on the fence. It was accidental, as be was playing hockey and had made a mishit. Witness detailed the punishment administered by the master. He counted 20 strokes and then lost count. In cross-examination by Mr Ftntay, witness said he had always been treated kindly by Mr Power. He admitted that he had not been a good boy and bad been frequently rerpimanded. and tome times punished by the master for wrioos offences. He admitted his conflict wb >n away from school was r.ot •together what it should have been. He bad annoyed people on the way to and from school in spite of frequent warnings by the master. Dr F. W. Follerton said he examined the boy on June 26 th. He found a targe fresh bruise on the buttocks, cbieffy on the right buttock. It would be about four inches. About a thirdof the bruise was on the left buttock. The bruises were consistent with the flogging with a strap. Should say strokes op to a dozen would do it. A considerable amount of force had been used. Would say it was a severe beating. Would be painful for sor 4 days. Was a tighter colour than liver.

To Mr Fintay : The boy was strong and sturdy. The punishment was rot likely to affect bis brain power -laughter or to result in anything more than temporary inconvenience. Would pall it a HVirt beating but NOT a very severe beating. If th» boy bad bad 3f) strokes be woutrt probably havs shown blisters ami the skin would have been broken. The bruise was not deep. Onty the skin was affecced. Tfce buttocks was qatte the safest place t» administer punishment. The strap produced was net a very formidable one * He bad seen a trace used. To Mr Sharpies r There might have been twelve strokes. Thought 3t> strokes would have given greater re•ult. Frederick Herbert Sims. J.P.. Chatrnan of the School Committee, deposed to the boy being shown to htm by the father. Th* left buttock was a mass of discoloration. The half of the other bttttoek was affected. Was told the boy had been thrashed at school. Was «f opinion it was a very severe thrashing. I» his opinion it wrs immoderately severe. Had been a pupil teachor. Did not think such thrwhing weald be justified under any circumstances. To Mr Finiay t As a pupil teacher witness had not the right to inflict corporal punishment. Do not think he was told what th* boy's offence was. Knew nothing of the boy's character. . Mr Sims' evidence was practically corroborated by J. H. Dillicar and J. W. Nichotson. members of the school committee, and also by Constable Mathew. In opening the case for the defence Mr Finiay said he did not wish todecry the boy. In many respects he was a good boy: in other respects he was »rv extremely difficult boy to manage This was Mr Power'* estimate of the tad after several years experience. The master had a liking for the boy and had treated him kindly and taken considerable interest in him, as has been admitted by the boy himself. Counselquoted a number of cases dealing with the power* and responsibility of teacher* in relation to pupils,among others a ruling by a Supreme Court Judge to the effect that m punishing a scholar if a teacher act* in good faith hj« ts not liable even if the punishment is held to be excessive. Mr Finiay submitted that the testimony of a teacher as to intention at the time of administering the punishment wa* admisgable. He contended that the punishment in this instance wa» not excessive and was in keeping with the offence committed. The thrashing was not inflicted for the single offence, but for a chain of offence* which m«ant defiance to the authority of the teacher. The pupil* had been repeatedly warned against offence-* of this nature; a boy Sd been punished for a similar offence 00 {be previous day, when teh warning been repeated. The boy Ptier had frequently disregarded the warning, and it was finally a question as to whether the teacher's authority wa* to be upheld or whether the discipline of the irtMl* school was to be disorganised. Edward A. Power, the defendant, •alt? ho bad been in charge of Te Kuiti school for three ami a half years. Be had had frequent complaints regarding the behaviour of children going hone from school. Had warned the school practically every week as many new children were coming to school. He had endeavoured to establish a code amttg: Ik children that their behaviour when away from school should be

equal to tbtir conduct at school. On the day previous to tbc commission of the offence by Plier be had punished a fcoy for a very similar offence, and had warned the school throughout. Next day a complaint was made by a lady as to the mod being splashed on her fence and window. The occupier of Ike house said she was at first going to inform the police, but asked the master it be could protect her from annoyance by the boys. Witness found that Plier was the guitty boy. Mad given the hoy ample opportunity to explain if the occurrence had been accidental. When ashed if he did not know he was doing wrong- the boy said "yes." Asked his reason for his action the boy replied "he did not know." The punishment administered was 9 strokes with b strap on the buttocks. Witness had a code of punishment the minimum be ing 9 strokes and the maximum 12 stroke.* far serious offence*. The moral effect of the boy's conduct in defying the his authority was* in witness' mind when administering the punishment, which was intended to be an example to the whote school. On a previous occasion witness had been asked by thr boy s mother to give the boy a th;»*hing for an offence. Witness did not Recede to the request. He talked to the boy and endeavoured t > influence him in that way. To Mr Sharpies: After hearing the evidence witness was still of opinion the punishment was not excessive. Had punished his own boy in a similar manner at home.

Asked S>y Mr Sharpies as to whether it was not general rule among boys to say punishment did not hurt, witness ( said hj«? did not think it was the rule. j Mr Sharpies: "The world has chang ! cd very much sine? I went t»> school. | then." j His Worship: "Perhaps it was the , rule among the more daring spirits in j those days." j In reply to Mr Sharpies witness said | if the doctor had said the punishment was unduly severe he. witness, would have been prepared to admit such was the case. Evidence was given by Miss Hatdyside as to the mud being thrown or splashed on her fence and window. Tom Hctct. a school boy. said he saw Ptier getting punished. He did not ' count the strokes but thought about a j dozen were administered. Plier was j not a very good boy. Had heard Plier j say: "ft didn't hurt much." Ptier , had played hockey during lunch hour the same as any other day. His Worship, in delivering judgment, said no doubt the boy got a severe thrashing. The witnesses agreed that the buttocks were severely bruised. To the lay mind a bruise looks a serious thing, and in the case in point a large surface being affected it looked more serious than it realty was. The doctor in his evidence characterised the thrashing as severe, but would not call it very severe, and the injury was merely superficial. The conduct of defendant throughout had been judical and was not inuftenced by passion. The offence taken by itself' did not appear to be a very serkws one. but taken as one of a cha»n of offences. it took quite a different cempteston. The very essence of thf usefulness of a schoolmaster depended upon his author- i ity being upheld. It was a point of! the first importance to establish that authority, otherwise a master's efforts would b* v held in contempt, and discipline would be disorganised. Punishment of this description was infrequent in the school, as was shown by the fact that only three times had punishment of a similar hvrn intlicte l by the master during three and a half years. Undoubtedly the blows had been severe, but taking into consideration the character. and continual disobedience of the boy. not too severe. When you chastise you moat do it properly. "One cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs." The father naturally concluded the boy had been ill-used but he (His Worship) could not agree with that. The buttocks was the proper place to chastise. Many masters punished on the hand, and this he thought a barbarous form of punishment. He must hold that the prosecution had not in any way established that the punishment w#4 cruel or amounted to an assault. Cases very much to the point had been cited to show how the Courts looked upon this sort of case. His ! Worship further stated that where a I prima facie case i* established in the j master's mind for the infliction of puni ishment he would hold the master jus- ! tifkd as Jong as the punishment was | not unreasonably severe. The information was dismissed with costs against the informant.