SEDDON MEMORIAL COLLEGE

Marlborough Express, Volume LX, Issue 232, 1 October 1926, Page 5

SEDDON MEMORIAL COLLEGE

THE CASE FOR THE DI HECTOR. WITH DRAWAL OF THE ACGUSER.

[Press Association.]

AUCKLAND, Oct. 1. The inquiry into the allegations made in respect to the control of Seddon Memorial Col le,ge was continuerl yesterday, and after hearing evideneo was adjournecl until to-clay. Mr Laery, iu opening: the case for Park, said it was remarkable that Mr Laing should have launched bold and unfounded eharges, sustained his attack for 12 months, petitioned Parliament twice, and, after preparing his case aird obtaining legal advioe. should have witliclrawn for financial reasons. He (Mr Leary) did not liesitate to say that if the inqjiiry liacl borno out Mr Laing' s brief to his counsel there would have been no withdrawal. Before leaving Mr Laing had dorie mueh harm by malring irresponsible and venomous aoeusations, and he hau diaggecl in the narnes of a number of persons, wlio were suffering disquietucle as a result. It was neoessary that Mr Park should be allowed to give evidence in reply, even tliough in doing so he was e-orn-pelled to hurt the feelings of various people whom he would have to chscuss. It was nnfortunate that Mr Laing had not brought the witnesses whose allegations he had trumpetecl so loriclly. As it was, there ivas only a. sihadow of their evidence to fight. Mr G. J. Park, in evidence, said that there had not been any policy of victim isation, and the various staff changes had been made in the interests of the College by the authority of the Board of Governors, and with. the approval of tlie Education Department' s officials. He was convinced thaf the work of the College had improved as a result. , Alr Iiiaing's dismissal hecame inevitahle hy. his conduet and Ihe trouble he hacl caused, both before ancl after presenting his petition to Parliament. The petition was uniquo m tlie history of education _ in New Zealand, ancl retention of its author upon the staff of the College would have been impossible without ineinring all manner of difficulties. Mr Laing had been one of a small coterie of discontented masters who systematically opposed him in his work. Mr Allen, who had been inyited to attend after ihe luncheon aujourmneiit to hear Alr Park s evidence concerning hinisell, ancl A\hq had theu intimated tliat lie had np wisih to be joinecl as a part-y to ihe inquiry, was given an opportunity to erosa-exami ne the witness._ hiit intimated that he clid not wisli took anv questions.