RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4439, 11 June 1875, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, Jke 10. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., E.M., J. Moore, Esq., J.P., and W. B. D. Mantel], Esq., J.P.) STOWAWAY. George Skinner, a stowaway on board the Kangatira, on her voyage from Kapier to "Wellington, was ordered to pay the amount of passage-money (£2), and a fine of 10s. In default, to be committed for seven days. LARCENY. Sarah Phipps, charged on remand with stealing £6 from John Parker, was discharged from custody in the absence of the prosecutor. Inspector Atchison stated that the prisoner's residence had been searched, but no trace of the money found. REFUSING DUTY. James Skiller, charged with refusing duty on board the schooner Melaine, was remanded till Monday, being too much under the influence of liquor to take part in the proceedings. ASSAULT. John Pilkington, assistant schoolmaster at the Sydney-street school, was charged with assaulting Henry Thomas Johns, a pupil attending the school. Mr. Gordon Allan appeared to prosecute, Mr. Whitaker to defend. The Chakman of the Education Board (Mr. Brandon), and the Secretary (Mr. Graham), attended to watch the proceedings on behalf of the Board. Mr. Allan opened the case by stating that on Monday last, Mr. Mowbray, the head master of the school being absent, the defendant acted in his place, and having asked the boy some question to which he did not receive what he considered to be a satisfactory answer, he proceeded to give him a severe beating. JSTo doubt there were persons who thought the master had a perfect right to act in this manner, but it was well laid down by the law that he had no power to do anything of this sort. All he could do was to administer moderate chastisement or turn the boy out of the school. Cases could be referred to in which persons had received three and four months' imprisonment for inflicting punishment such as would be deposed to in this case, and he should prove, before the case was concluded, that where masters gave way to their tempers and inflicted summary and . severe punishment, they were liable to serious consequences. His first witness wouldbe the boy himself. Henry Thomas Johns stated : I am eleven years old, and have been at the Thorndon school about two years. Mr. Pilkington, the defendant, wa3 at the school on Monday last, acting in the capacity of head-master in the absence of Mr. Mowbray. I told, one of the boys I would try to get out, and asked him where the place in the lesson was. Mr. Pilj kington then told me to stand out, and said he ? was going to give me the cane, and told me to hold out my hand. I declined to do so, and he got me by the back of the neck and hit me with the cane. He gave more than one or two blows, and told me to go back to my place. I went' back to my place, and said, " You won't hit me again, lankey," and then he did hit me again. I tried to run out of the school, and he pulled me back and beat me again. I cannot say how many blows he gave me, but there were a good few. I remained till the school was over, and then went out and had a game. He beat me three times altogether. I felt a good deal of pain from the blows, and was examined by a doctor. Cross-examined by Mr. Whitaker : I didn't say that as Mr. Mowbray was away that would be a good time for a lark. The usual method of caning was to hold out the hand and receive the cane. I have been caned on the hand before, but on this occasion I refused to hold out my hand because the other boys told me not to do so. He then caned me on the back, and I ran away and called him "lankey." Then he caned me again. T was not making a noise when he ordered me to stand out. F. G. Johns, the father of the boy, said : On Monday last I was standing at my gate in Molesworth-street when my son came home. He appeared rather languid, but said nothing until he was going to bed, when he complained of having been beaten at school. He was cut across both shoulders, the skin being broken on the right blade bone. I asked him what he had been doing, and he gave me an explanation similar to that just given to the Court. His feelings had been pent up, and when he began to relate what had taken place he became very excited, his mother being also excited by the evident severity of the punishment. Dr. Diver saw the boy next morning, and gave instructions as to how he was to be treated. All my boys have been to the Thorndon school, and were never ill-treated while under Mr. Mowbray's charge. Dr, Diver stated : On Wednesday morning last I examined the boy, and found twenty-one marks of extravasated blood under the skin. In one place the skin was broken, as if there had beeri repeated blows on that particular spot. The marks were wide apart, and I should imagine that the blows must have been very severe to break the skin through the clothing. Mr. Johns told me that the boy was out of health through the beating, and that he did not sleep the whole night previously. Cross-examined by Mr. Whitaker : I he blows must have been inflicted by some blunt instrument such as that produced._ [The cane was uu ordinary one, about 2ft. 6in. long, and about the thickness of the little finger.] I have seen a boy punished with the cat, and the punishment did not appear more severe than that inficted upon Mr. Johns's boy. Army and navy boys are flogged across the breech.

The boy in this case was struck across the shoulders, where there would be greater resistance on account of the bone. There were about twelve markß altogether, and I should he must have ' received about three dozen blows, else the ecchymosis would not have been so severe. The cat, of course, would inflict blows more severe than the cane. 33. T. Gillon said he was in the clerk's office when Mr. Johns brought his boy into court, aud saw his back, which displayed evidence of a severe beating. Had a child of his received a beating of the kind he would feel strongly inclined to apply the same discipline to the person who inflicted it. This being the ca3e for the prosecution, Mr. Whitaker called Win. Mowbray, head master of the Sydneystreet school, who stated: On Monday last Mr. Pilkington was left in charge of the school, and during my absence he was responsible for the discipline of the pupils. His instructions were to take charge. Mr. Whitaker: Did you give him any instructions in reference to this particular boy? Mr. Allan: I object. If this witness gave instructions ttat the boy was to be unduly chastised we must put him in the place of the defendant. Mr. AVhitaker: But I have a right to show what the conduct of this boy has been. Mr. Mowbray: I gave no special instructions about this boy, but I do remember an occasion when two or three boys took charge of the school. Mr. Allan: I object to evidence of this sort being taken. Mr. Crawford: But it has a special bearing on the case. Mr. Allan: The law on the subject is this Mr. Crawford: I know what the law on the subject is, because I have "Addison on Torts" before me, wherein it is stated that if any boy, or any number of boys, band together to subvert the discipline of the school, the head master is justified in chastising those who identify themselves in such a movement. Mr. Whitaker: My object is to show that this boy, or some boy in particular, has attempted to get up a revolution in the school; that special instructions had been left with the master temporarily in charge, to check anything of the sort; and that Mr. Pilkington carried out those instructions by chastising this boy. Mr. Mowbray : Mr. Pilkington complained to me of the conduct of some boys when I was away before. This boy was amongst them, and he asked what he should do if it occurred again. I replied that he must punish one or two of the bigger boys, as an example to the rest. Mr. Allan: Did you authorise him to punish them eotlte que coilte? Mr. AVhitaker: Koot ke what? Mr. Allan: My good man Mr. Whitaker : Sir ! Mr. Allan: I beg your pardon— my learned fi-iend—but I cannot undertake to make you understand Trench. Mr. Whitaker: Well, Mr. Mowbray. Mr. Mowbray: I did not give particular instructions to flog this boy. Mr. Allan: Your instructions were to put down rebellion. Mr. Mowbray : I told Mr. Pilkington he must maintain the discipline of the school. Mr. Allan : Then, do you consider it the proper way to maintain the discipline of the school to flog a boy to this extent ? Mr. Mowbray : I do not in any way hold myself responsible for what has taken place. Mr. Allan : What do you consider punishment? Mr. Mowbray : To use the cane. Mr. Allan : To use the cane immoderately ? Mr. Mowbray : No ; I consider I use the cane very moderately indeed. Mr. Allan : Were you in court when Dr. Diver gave evidence ? Mr. Mowbray : Yes. Mr. Allan : And what did you think of his description of the treatment received by the boy? Mr. Mowbray : I certainly should not have given three dozen blows. Mr. Allan : Possibly you know how to manage your boys better. Mr. Mowbray : I always make it a rule when a boy does not submit to proper punishment to turn him away. Some boys would take charge of the school if they dared. Mr. Whitaker : I suppose you would have chastised this boy for such insolence as he gave Mr. Pilkington ? Mr. Mowbray : I would have punished him to a certain extent, and if that had no effect I should have sent him away. Kenneth Webb, a pupil attending Thorndon school, was present on Monday, but heard of no agreement amongst the boys to create a disturbance in the school. Johns asked a boy where the place was, and Mr. Pilkington ordered him to stand out, and beat him, as he had been playing all day. Johns called him " lankey," and the master beat him again. After the third thrashing Johns threatened to throw an ink-bottle at Mr. Pilkington's head. Cross-examined by Mr. Allan : The boy was not thrashed more severely than he deserved. It might be severe, but it was justified. I have not been spoken to by Mr. Pilkington about this case, nor am I a favorite of his. Henry Mason said : On Monday 1 was at school when the occurrence took place. Johns tried to misconduct himself in such a manner as to be " sent out" on the floor. Mr. Pilkington asked him to hold out his hand, but Johns refused, and Mr. Pilkington caned him, when Johns tried to kick him, and called him "lankey." He also threatened to throw the ink-bottle at his head, and made an attempt to run out of the school. Cross-examined by Mr. Allan : I was not one of the good boys. I was also "sent out" to get the cane. August Koch, another pupil, stated : I was at school on Monday. I heard of no rebellion in the school, but Johns was misbehaving himself to try and get " sent out." He played, and asked for the place in the history. Mr. Pilkington sent him out, and told him to hold out his hand. He refused, and Mr. Pilkington thrashed him, and told him to go to his place. He then said " You won't • do it again lankey." I have seen boys caned frequently, and didn't consider Johns's caning severe. The first,caning was very light. By the Court : Johns didn't cry or call out when he was caned. Mr. Mantell : What did he mean when he called Mr. Pilkington " lankey ?" Witness : He meant that he was tall. Mr. Mantell : But what sense was it fintended to express ? Was it complimentary? Witness : No; it was said offensively. Mr. Whitaker, in addressing the Bench for the defence, contended that the chastisement administered was necessary to the maintenance of discipline, and drew attention to the fact that the boy thought nothing of the thrashing until his father questioned him about it. The father also did not seem to have been much alarmed about it; for although the boy was flogged on Monday, Dr. Diver was not called in to examine him till Wednesday, although the father swore that he called in the doctor on Tuesday. The boy's conduct was insolent throughout, even after the third thrashing ; and when the Bench considered the provocation Mr. Pilkington had received, he felt convinced their verdict would be for his client. Mr. Allan quoted the case Fitzgerald v. Northcote (Finlayson's Reports) to show that even if punishment %vere justifiable, it must be punishment of a moderate kind. The defendant was not in any way justified in beating the boy as he had done. Even a parent would not be justified in doing so, for cases could lie cited where parents had been imprisoned for three or four months for similar conduct. A master was not justified in resorting to wanton Hogging. A person of discretion in such a position always found it better to rule by love than fear, as in the case of Dr. Arnold, of Rugby. Discipline should be maintained by moral suasion rather than by terror, and when this means failed, the boy should have been sent home instead of being treated in the manner testified to by Dr. Diver. The conduct of the defendant showed that he was unfit to occupy the position of master, and he trusted the Bench would mark its sense of his conduct by awarding adequate punishment. I The Bench said that taking the law as it

was laid down in Addison, the head master was the only person justified in using corporal punishment, but in this case the defendant must be regarded as the head master, he having been left in charge of the school. The Bench, however, were of opinion that the punishment had been rather severe, although they could not overlook the fact that the boy had been somewhat " cheeky." He refused to hold out his hand when told to do so, he next called the master "lankey,". and then tried to run away from the school, and thereby probably caused, the defendant to lose his temper. In consequence of the provocation, they were not disposed to visit the defendant with a very heavy penalty, and he would, therefore, be fined 20s. and costs. Several civil cases of little interest were heard, and the Court adjourned.