EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 2020, 26 August 1919, Page 3

EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT.

SCTIOOLMASTER CONVICTED AND FINED. Judgment was given by Mr J. L. Stout, S.AI., at the Palmerston Magistrate’s Court yesterday in the case . in which Mrs Cornfurd charged A. 0. Buehler, headmaster of the West End School, with assaulting her son * Jack Corn ford, a pupil at the school. Mr Onglcy appeared for the informant, and Mr HT R. Cooper for the defendant. After reviewing the evidence given at the hearing of the case last week, His Worship said: —“From Dr. Barnett’s evidence, lowing a certain discount for picturesque description, there can be no doubt that the boy was subjected to a most severe Hogging, and this .is-support-ed by the evidence of Dr. Peach. Dr. Putnam agrees that the thrashing Avas a good sound one, but does not think it was excessive. Dr. Putnam, however, did not see the boy until a week after the thrashing had been • administered, and his evidence is on this account hardly so valuable as Dr. Barnett’s. All the doctors agree that there is nothing to indicate that the boy bruises more easily than other boys. Dx*. Barnett’s description of the injuries sustained by the boy is: A lump on the upper right thigh as large as an orange, another lump almost as big behind the left buttock, and below that again two well marked weals extending across the left leg down to behind the right knee. He noticed a •red line down the centre of the first lump and blue discolouration due to hemorrhage under the skin, and similarly describes the other lump. His opinion is that the marks must have been caused by very severe bruises, and adds that he would characterise the thrashing as unmerciful. Dr. Peach still found similar marks on his examination on the 7th August. He stated the strap was not an unreasonable instrument, but that the administration of four strokes, followed by five, if hit very hard, would be a bit unreasonable. All doctors agree that Hie boy has suffered no permanent physical injury. There can be no doubt from the medical evidence and the evidence of the hoy, his mother and sister, that the second thrashing must have been extremely severe,‘am! have affected the boy for some considerable time. There is no doubt as to the right of a master to administer moderate or reasonable corporal punishment for a sufficient cause, and it has been held in the New Zealand case of Hansen v. Cole, adopting the principle laid down in the American case of Lander v. Leaver, that in determining whether a punishment administered by a master was reasonable and for a sufficient cause., considerable allowance should be made to him by way of protecting him in the exercise of his discretion, and if there is a reasonable doubt whether the punishment was excessive ho should have -the benefit of the doubt. The protection accorded in New Zealand is statutory, and is to be found in section 85 of (he Crimes Act, 1908. That section says that it is lawful for a schoolmaster to use force by way of correction towards a pupil under his care, provided that such force is reasonable under the circumstances. It is no doubt necessary that a ' master should have the right to supervise and correct the conduct of his pupils out of school hours when they are not under direct parental control. The principles and reasons in the decision of Cleary v. Booth are, I think, equally applicable to our compulsory educational system where the authority to punish is ■ statutory, ami not delegated by the parent, as it was Held to be in that ease. The defendant was therefore justified in administering the first punishment. With regard to the second thrashing, the conduct of the boy Cornford on his return to the schoolroom had the effect of distracting from their lesson a large class of pupils. In such a ease example has to be considered, and discipline on a number of children has to be preserved. Mr Hostick was therefore justified in sending Cornford for further punishment, and the defendant was also justified in administering some further reasonable corporal punishment, and the only question for my consideration is whether the punishment inflicted was beyond the bounds of moderation, and' so excessive as to take away from the defendant the statutory protection afforded by section 85 of the Crimes Act, 1908. In forming a conclusion in the matter, it must be noticed that the defendant made no enquiry as to how the boy Cornford had shown Unit ho treated his punishment lightly. He (the defendant) said he was annoyed but not angry, and that he intended to make, and did make, the second punishment much more severe than the first. It was, I think, his duty before making a second punishment so severe to make some enquiries from the master as to the precise nature of the. hoy’s offence. The. medical and other evidence shows that the injuries sustained by the boy could only have been indicted with the strap produced if excessive force and V’eight had been put behind the blows. In determining whether such force was reasonable, the age and physique of the boy must be taken into consideration. The boy does not appear to he robust for his age, and I have come to the conclusion that the defendant, taking into account that he did not enquire into the exact offence, but was merely told that the boy had taken his pun- " iahwehf lightly, did administer ex-

eessive punishment. I think, further, that the medical evidence shows that the punishment was beyond the bounds of moderation, and in my opinion a master would not be protected by section 85 of the Crimes Act, 1908, whatever the offence committed by the pupil, where the punishment exceeds those bounds. Some limit must be placed upon the master’s right to administer correction, and that limit must be that the punishment must be reasonable and not exceed the bounds of moderation.

it is true that both the defendantand Mr Hostick use the term “gross insubordination” in describing the boy’s conduct, but neither has satisfied me that any further explanation was made at the time than that the boy had, made light of his first punishment—the manner of doing' so was not made known to the defendant. Mr Hostick’s evidence \& very indefinite as to what he told the defendant, and the defendant admits that he asked for no explanation, but that he knew the boy would not be on the floor unless he bad misbehaved himself. That may or may not be a reasonable atritude.J.o adopt where followed by moderate punishment, but in my opinion something more is required where a punishment is to be extremely severe. It seems to me that the defendant’s zeal to uphold his reputation as a disciplinarian, and his annoyance that the first punishment was taken lightly, has led him on this occasion

to overstep the mark. While I think the punishment somewhat excessive, I have already held some punishment was and in the circumstances I do not think the ease calls for a severe penalty. I think justice will be met if I enter a conviction and inflict a tine of £2, and order the defendant to pay the costs of the prosecution, including the fees of Dr. Barnett and Dr Peach, for their examination of the boy Cornford.” Mr Cooper (for defendant) : My client asks for the fine to be tixed at £5 Is. The Magistrate: It is not usual. Mr Cooper said that possibly under the circumstances the Alagis-, trate would see his way to grant the request. It might possibly be advisable to get the ruling of the Supreme Court. The Magistrate said that it had already been decided by the Supreme Court that Magistrates should not increase (he lines in such eases. Mr Cooper said that his instructions really came from the Teachers’ Institute. The Magistrate said he could not recognise the Teachers’ Institute, if it had not been that the Judges had said that it was not the correct thing to .do, he might have taken the course suggested. Under the circumstances he could not see his way to do as requested.—Standard,