SCHOOL DISCIPLINE AND CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXVIV, Issue 71, 29 February 1916, Page 6

SCHOOL DISCIPLINE AND CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.

A case in which the infliction of corporal punishment on a child by a teacher at Riverhead School was the basis of a charge of assault against the teacher, laid by the child s fathei, occupied the attention of Mr F. V. Fraser, S.M.. at the Auckland Police Court. The charge was against )\ illiam Masson, headmaster at the Riverhead School, and it was alleged that on November 8 he had assaulted Catherine McNair, a girl of ten years, by striking her with a cane across the shoulders, hack and legs. Tiie evidence of the prosecution contended that the teacher had been unduly severe in his chastisement of the girl, the medical testimony showing that the child’s body bore a number of marks and bruises.

For the defence it was urged that the child was very obstinate and that her disobedience had been supported by her parents. The principal bruises were the result of her accidental fall against a desk.

In summing up the case His Worship stated that it had been shown that the child was stubborn, disobedient and undisciplined, and lie know from experience that there was nothing more objectionable in a school than an undisciplined child. The punishment had not been so severe as to be quite beyond the teacher’s discretion, though considering the child’s size, age and sex it was, rather more severe than was reasonable. Severe punishment was merited, and he did not. in the circumstances, feel that the teacher was to be blamed, or that lie had gone beyond his rights. For a parent to tell a teacher that his children were not to receive corporal punishment was to prevent the enforcement of reasonable discipline, especially if the child traded on the knowledge of the prohibition. Unless such a prohibition were supported by sound medical reasons a teacher was perfectly justified in ignoring it altogether. His Worship made reference to a decision by Sir .James Prendergast, in which the latter laid it down that a teacher should be protected by the Court in the exercise of the very wide discretion necessarily onrusted to him, and he should not be adversely dealt with by the Court unless the punishment were such as to be beyond what could possibly be inflicted by a reasonable man, even though tiie Court might think that the punishment was severe. In the present case the light supplejack used could not inflict unduly severe punishment. The information would be dismissed. the costs io be arranged between the parties.