Disturbances in a School.

Manawatu Herald, 26 September 1899, Page 3

Disturbances in a School.

*- At the B.M. Court this (Monday) morniDg before Mr Creenfield, S.M.. Arthur Willcox was charged on the information ot G. S. Bumble, chairman of the Ashhurst School Committen, with wilfully disturbing the Asbhurut School. Mr Innes appeared for the complainant, and Mr Moore for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. In opening the case, Mr Innes explained (hit the defendant had very strong objections to his children being kept in after hours, whether they deserved it or not, so he was in the habit of coming to the school and trying forcibly take them away and this was what happened on the day in question. W. J. Andrew, headmaster of the school, paid that on July 31?t two of Mr Willcox's children were kept in, as they were behind with their work. About 4 o'clock Mr Willcox appeared at the door of his (witness's) room, and demanded that his child Bbould ba allowed to go home. Witness told him that ihe child could gn whf-n ehfl had don« her work Mr Willccx then caught hold ol witness and threw him down on the floor of the porch, and then passed into the room. All this happened in view of ihe scholars, of whom therp were about 40 present. Witness got np and went between Willcox and and the scholars, and again told Willeox that he must go out. At this pints Mr Willcox's son, who was with him, called out to his siptpr to get up and run, which she did. Mr Willoox then wont towards thf door, unuid d, and witness rpmarkrd that it w»; strange a blind mac could find the door so fcafily, wherrupoiK^acciwd struck a blow at witness which witn^s* evaded. Willoox tbf n pushed witnpss against the blackboard, and knocked it down He then walked out at the door without affti-tanoe. The incident had a very agitating iff ct upon thf poholarp, some of whom were cryiDg. and others left ths room. Wifnepp thtn interviewed the Chairman of the Committee, and on his return to the school he found Willcox trying to enter the grounds, whioh witnes? prevented him doing, and askrd him to listen to reason, Willcox said be would not listen to reason. and a struggle ensued. Mr Bumble then came on the pcene, and advised Willcox to clear out. The second child who had b>en kept in came out of echool, and Mr Willcox went away. Cross-examined, witness said the reason one of his children had been kept in was that phe bad taken her sewing home and . it bad been burned because it was dirty, and she had to make up in a few months what the other children had taken the year to do. He had never received any complaint from either Mr or Mrs Willcox that their children bnd been kept in after hours. The children had been kept in to make up for back work. G S. Rumbl?, Chairman of the A^hhurst School Committee, deposed that on July Blst he saw Mr Will cox endeavouring to get into the school grounds, and when witness asked him to leave he refused to do bo, and forced his way through the gate. Witness had received a letter from Willcox complaining of his children being kept in four days be. fore ihe disturbance. The Coromiitee considered the matter, and drcided to ask Willcox to apologise, which hs refused to do, and Ihe information had accordingly been been laid against him. Sina Piercy and George McKenzie also described the disturbance which took place in the school. v For the defence Mr Moore contended that the information must be dismissed, because the disturbance did not take place during school hours, and anything that happens after the hours appointed by the Board could not come within the Act. Arthur Willcox, defendant, deposed that ever since Mr Andrew had taught the school there had been trouble about the children being kept in. He made a practice of going to meet the

children, and always made enquiries, with the result that he was told by them they had been kept in to do lessons. He then gave his version ot the disturbance which was substantially the same as that given by Mr Andrew. Mrs Willcox also gave formal cvi dence as to her children being de tamed after school hours. His Worship said that after considering the evidence he decided as follows:— (1) That the master in detaining the children after school hours, as a punishment for not doing home lessons, exceeded the scope of his authority, (a) That he was wrong in not permitting the children to leave the school on their being demanded by their father. (3) That the disturbance was caused by the mistaken conduct of the master. The information would therefore be dismissed, with £1 is costs.— Standard.