Assaulting a Schoolmaster.

Patea Mail, 23 September 1880, Page 3

Assaulting a Schoolmaster.

WEISS V. M'LOUGULIN. At the Patea R.M. Court on Tuesday, before C. A. Wray, 11.M., Dr Croft, H. S, Peacock, and J. W. Kenah, J.P.’s, the hearing of the case of assaulting the Whenuakura schoolmaster was resumed and concluded. There was a cross summonses charging the master with assaulting and beating M’Lougblin’s little girl. The Bench decided that the two summons should be heard separately ; and they defen ed judgment in the first case until the second was heard. Mr Ward opened the prosecution in the second case, and the evidence was in substance the defence to the first summons. He said : This is a case for a common assault, committed by the schoolmaster upon a female child of the defendant. A great deal has been made by the complainant of the injuries he has received. I shall be in a position to show that he has received scarcely any injury at all. This row took place in consequence of an aggravation which the defendant fancied had been occasioned by reason of the conduct of the schoolmaster towards his child; This took place at 5.30 in the afternoon of the Ist instant. The little girl had been kept after four o’clock because she could notspell some word. All the other scholars were sent away, and she would have 1:}milcs to go along the road home by herself. From four o’clock to five the master had been using considerable . violence towards this child, and her screams were heard by witnesses for a long distance. I submit, therefore, that it really is enough to make a parent very angry indeed when he finds a man like Mr Weiss dealing with a little child in a lonely spot in this manner, because she could not spell a certain word. This assault took place on the Ist of this month, and a number of days after wards Mr Weiss thinks fit to commence these proceedings. The evidence brought out showed that he had been in the habit of striking these children, and he admitted that he had hit them more than once with his hand—boxed their ears ; and that he struck them with a piece of wood. I shall prove that the master has been in the habit of using rulers ; and a blow from a ruler would not be a very nice thing for a child of six to ten years of age. The very piece of black-board with which lie struck this child, I am instructed, formed a portion of the black-board which ho used in the school, and was broken by Mr Weiss in one of his tantrums.

Mr M’Loughlin deposed : My daughter Mary was eight years old in July. She attended Mr AVeiss’s school, and on the Ist instant I was at homo about a quarter past five, and from information received from my little boy I went to the school. I met my little girl just outside the school, crying bitterly, and she said that Mr Weiss had been beating her with a piece of board. I went to the school, not in an amiable mood, to have a row with the master. I caught him by the collar of the coat and gave him a shaking, and knocked him down with my fist. I called him a lunatic, and he said, “ Oh, allow me to explain.” I told him he ought to be ashamed to keep a child so late and turn her out on a lonely road of an evening. The road is frequented by horsemen and stray cattle. My objection was that in keeping the child, in one of his tantrums he might drive her wits out, and also turning her out on the road where she may be injured or killed by stray cattle. A mad steer knocked a butcher’s cart over about three weeks ago. Six children usually come along that road together from school. I always told the little boy never to come home without his sister. I received a letter from Mr Weiss. MrHamciton : That letter was written without prejudice. Mr Ward : Are you afraid to have it read in Court ?

Mr Hamerton : It was written by me professionally, without prejudice, and does not bind my client. The Bench ruled that the letter had better not be read. Cross-examined by Mr Hamerton : I used to punish my little boy with a strap when he came home without his sister. I never objected to my children being punished in school hours, but this was after school hours. I have never thought it worth while to complain to Mr Weiss about beating ray children in schotl hours, because he always had so much petty dignity. I had taken my boy away from the school previously because Mr Weiss was beating him on the head with books, making him stupid. I sent him to Patea school for a time, and then sent him again to Whenuakura school, it being

nearer. Of two evils choose the least . I never was satisfied with the school, nor with the progress my children were making. I kicked Mr Weiss when he was down—gave him a kick in the ribs, but did not kick him all over the body. I did not wait for him to explain? What use to to allow him to explain. lam only sorry I did not give him a proper thrashing. Mr Wray : You are injuring your case. Mr Hamcrton : It will be injured a great deal more before we have done. Cross-examination continued : I did say I wished I had had a stick. By the Bench : This is the first time the little girl had been kept late in school, but the boy had been kept in. Mr Wray : Did it not occur to you to complain to the proper authorities ? Witness : I considered I should get no satisfaction either from Mr Weiss or others. Mr Wray : But did you try to get satisfaction ? Witness : When I took the boy away, all tried to bounce me into bringing him back to the school. Mr Wray : Then you thought you would take the law into your own hands ? Witness : I did not think I should get any satisfaction. I felt very angry at the time. Mr Wray : And your anger got the better of you ? Witness : Yes, that is .about it. I believe if I had met the girl half way, I might have gone back with her, but meeting her close to the school I was angry. Mr Wray : Who arc the people who tried to bounce you ?

Witness • Two of the committee-men-Mr Sheehan came twice to I lie house, also Mr Hurley ; and Mr Horner tried to bounce me. I defied them, as the boy was not of nrrr>

Mr Wray : You say you regret that you did not give the master more ? Witness : Yes, on account of these proceedings, but I was quite satisfied at the time, Mary M'Loughlin was then called lor the defence, and in answer to Mr Ward, said : Mr Weiss hit me with a stick on the shoulder, after the scholars had left. He called me a troublesome little brat, and a little whelp. I cried because he hit me. He hit me more than once. I don’t know how often. It was for not saying a word I did not know. Cross-examined by Mr Hamerton : He whipped me with a short flat stick, my brother’s ruler. Don’t you cry in the class sometimes when Mr Weiss does not touch you at all ? Witness : Yes, sometimes. By Mr Ward : I was beaten with that stick on the hand, and with another stick on the shoulder—a board wider than the stick, but no bigger. The Bench intimated that there appeared to be no necessity to call more evidence of this character. Mr Ward proposed to call Alice Keith to show that what was going on in the school between the master and this child was heard outside, and that a messenger was sent straight for the father. The Bench thought that the facts were now understood, Mr Ward : Then 1 will call no more evidence.

Mr Hamerton ; I don’t propose to call any rebutting evidence, under the circumstances.

The Magistrates then retired to consider. After half an hour’s absence they returned, and Mr Wray said : In this case it appears to the Court that it has been proved the defendant (McLoughlin) committed a very serious assault, and that in so acting lie has rendered himself liable to the heaviest punishment which it is in the power of the Court to inflict, that of imprisonment without the option of a line. For reasons which have been fully weighed and considered, the Court have, however, determined in this the first case of the kind in the district, after reprimanding the defendant for the cowardly assault which he has committed, and warning him and others that a repetition of the offence would inevitably lead to a severe punishment, to impose a fine of £5 and costs, or in default one month’s imprisonment. In the case of M’Loughlin v, Weiss, the information is dismissed. Mr Ward : I suppose I may ask for time, as my client has not got the money with him. Mr Wray : Oh, certainly. Mr F. O’S. McCarthy handed in a £5 note, saying “ Here’s the money.” It was understood that a number of the defendant’s sympathisers who were in Court had arranged to contribute amongst them the amount of the fine. The defendant paid the costs—two guineas solicitor’s fee> and 13s Court fees.