A SCHOOL CASE.

Southern Cross, Volume 2, Issue 20, 11 August 1894, Page 5

A SCHOOL CASE.

At the Police Court on Monday last, before Messrs G. Froggatt and R. F. Cuthbertson, J.P.’s, Henry E. Murray, third assistant in the Middle School, •was charged with having, on the 80th July, unlawfully beaten Ernest Clerapson, aged thirteen. Mr Macalister appeared for the complainant and Mr T. M. Macdonald for the defendant.

E. Clempson deposed that he was in defendant’s class. On Friday, 27th July, he was in the wrong place in the class, and was called out. Defendant told him to hold out his hand and he did so, but dre,v it back again. He was told to remain after the class bad retired, anc. did so. Defendant then punished witness by striking him on the hand with a long, thick strap. His hand was not injured in anyway. As he was going out of the door witness said —“ We will see about this ■on Monday.” Some time after they

resumed work on Monday defendant stopped the class, said that witness had insulted him, and took him into the lobby to be punished. He then struck witness very hard on the hack, legs, and hands. He struck him very hard, and witness cried out. He had never been flogged like that before, but on the hands only. Cross - examined : He had been flogged several times by the headmaster,Mr Mehaffey, on the hand. He was only in his wrong place, and was not talking to, or touching the other boys, when called out on Friday morning. He was not worse again in the afternoon. After drawing back his hand a number of times, Mr Murray ordered him to wait till the class retired. He struck him twelve times or more, and witness said he would see about this on Monday—die did not say “ I will make it hot, or warm, for you, old Murray, for this.” When witness was punished on Monday he did not refuse to hold out his hand before he was struck on the shoulders. He told Mr Murray he was sorry for what he had done, and would not repeat it—meaning his statement that he would see about it on Monday.

J. Carron and W. Dillon, attending the school, also gave evidence. Carron stated that Clempson was not worse than the other boys, and that he was not interfering with the other boys when called out on Friday. Dr Lowe deposed that on 31st July Mr Clempson brought his son to him for examination. There were several severe bruises on his back and arms. The marks extended from the shoulder to the waist; it must have been a severe beating. There were a great number of bruises. —Cross-examined : The skin was not broken, but was considerably discoloured. Mr Macalister wished the witness to state whether the punishment was not excessive, but Mr Macdonald objected, and the bench concurred with him in the view that this was a matter for their judgment.

E. and S. Clempson, the complainant’s parents deposed that he was industrious and obedient, and had been getting on very well at the school. This was the case for the prosecution.

Mr Macdonald said the defence was that the chastisement inflicted was, under the circumstances, reasonable and proper. If he satisfied them or this point, it would he their duty to dismiss the information. If a teacher was to be punished for doing his duty it would be the signal for rebellion and want of discipline in the school. H. E. Murray deposed that he had never had a complaint of this kind made against him before. Clempson was the most unruly boy in his class, and he called him out on Friday because he was disturbing his classmates. He was warned, but repeated his misconduct in the afternoon, when witness called him out and attempted to punish him. After the class was dismissed witness succeeded in giving him four strokes on the hand, and the boy on leaving remaoked —“ I will make it hot, or warm for you, old Murray, for this. On Monday witness spoke to Clempson about his insulting remark, and called him out for punishment. He kept withdrawing his hand, and witness was unable to chastise him. Wishing to avoid a scene in front of the class, he took the boy into the lobby. He continued to refuse to hold out his hand, and witness, solely to induce him to do so, drew the strap across his shoulders. He then extended his hand. He did not give him more than six strokes on the hand, but had to give him a second stroke over the shoulders before he could induce him to hold out his hand. Part of the strap might have gone across his arms, but witness did not mean to hit him there. The boy then expressed regret for his conduct, promised not to repeat it, and worked quietly till 12.30, when he was dismissed, and did not return. He produced the strap or tawse used on the occasion.—Cross-examined: The class was somewhat unruly owing to witness being new to it. The other boys who had given evidence were behind the complainant, and could not judge

so well as witness (who was in front of the class) as to how he was behaving-.

E. H. Ward, pupil teacher, corroborated defendant’s evidence as to Clempson’s misconduct, and the words he used after punishment on Friday. He had found the boy troublesome. W. G. Mehaffey, head master, deposed that Clempson had frequently been sent to him for punishment, which on several, occasions was admistered on the shoulders. His own tawse were not so artistic -as those produced, but the latter was a fair instrument of punishment. Clempson was a mischievous, playful boy, and as such gave trouble to his teacher. Mr Clempson brought the boy to witness, and he examined his shoulders. The skin was discoloured, and it was evident that the strap had been applied somewhat vigorously. Witness remarked that the punishment wa's severe, that the boy must have been guilt of gross misconduct, and that he would inquire into the matter. The discoloration was no greater than would be produced by a strap moderately applied, considering the boy’s clothing—a great deal would depend on the clothing. Witness asked Mr Murray if he was aware that the strap had marked the boy’s back, and he replied that he was. not. Witness told him the boy’s shoulders had been very noticeably marked. He told h.im that for his guidance in future punishment. He had made inquiries, and concluded that the boy richly deserved punishment.

The bench dismissed the information, holding that the evidence established the fact that the complainant had been guilty of a very' grave offence. Discipline must be maintained, and the teacher, under the circumstances, had done his duty. The punishment inflicted was deserved, and the boy had brought it upon himself through refusing to receive the ordinary chastisement. Information dismissed, with costs, 21s.