RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1237, 9 September 1884, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka—Mondat, Sbft. 7, 1884,

rßefore S. D. Barker, and J. Talbot, L Esqs., J.P.'b] ASSAULT ON A SCHOOLMABTBB. Joseph Gilliet was charged, on an information laid by E. W. Gurr, second master in the Temuka District High School, with baying assaulted him ou the morning of the 4th instant on the road in front of the school in the presence of aoine of his pupils. The defendant pleaded guilty, under provocation. Mr AtjpiDall appeared for the complainant. Edwin W. Gurr : lima schoolmaster in the Temuka District High School. On the morning of the 4th instant I was passing from my place to the school when I was met by the defendant on the road in front of the school. He asked me if my name was Gurr, and I said it was. He spoke of his boy, and t told him I had chastised him—that 1 gave hi in 12 strokes on the hand. He then asked me would I fight him or would I allow him to take satisfaction with a " supplejack he had in his hand. I said I would rather he would report the matter to the Education Board. He then laid bold of me and commenced striking me with the " supplejack" till he broke it. After he broke it he made an attempt to strike me with his fi«t. He then let me go, and I told him he would have to stand the consequences of the law. He said he had made up Ms mind for that. This was in front of the school and some of the children were on the play-ground, and on the road witnessing the assault. To the defendant: My instructions from the head-master are to punish any boys. Tne eommittee had not, previous to this, complained of any punishment. Some pereens bad complained. I swear you tried to hit me with your fist. To Mr Aspinall: The boy is about 15 years of age. He has attended the pchool since, and never complained of any injury. Mr Aspinall said he had four witnesses present, but as the defendant had admitted the charge he did not think it necessary to call them. The assault was a most cowardly one. It was a cowardly thing for a man like the defendant to strike the complainant. He had his remedies if he felt aggrieved ; he could have complained to the School Committee or the Education Board ; or he could hare summoned Mr Gurr before the Court. The punishment of the boy took place three weeks ago, and now, after all that time, the defendant assaulted the plaintiff in this cold-blooded manner. His object evidently was to degrade Mr Gurr in tbe I eyes of the pupils, and to destroy the discipline of the school. He hoped the Court.would inflict as severe a penalty on the defendant as his conduct deserved. Joseph Gilliet, the defendant, stated that on last Tuesday evening he met the Chairman of the School Committee, who asked him why his boy was not attending icbool —was it the result of the flogging he got from the complainant. Witness said he know nothing of the flogging, and would inquire. He went home and found tbe boy's thumb stiff, He could not bend it. He then took a "supplejack" and gave the complainant a caning, and he felt he was justified in doing so. ) J_f a man had used a horse as his boy had beenused he would have been brought up for cruelty to animals. " To Mr Aspinall: 1 knew nothing about it until Mr Gray told me. The boy never complained. The reason I die 1 aot complain to the School Committee was because [ preferred my own way of getting aatisf action. The Chaiiman of the School Committee said afterwards that I had not given him half enough. William Gilliet, the boy punished by the complainant, was called. He appeared a strong well-grown boy ot about 15 years of age. His evidence consisted of showing his thumb to the Court. His father remarked that " supposing lock-jaw set in, the boy would be crippled for life." The Court, however, held that the exhibition of the thumb bad nothing to do with the case in the tlightest degree, and that Mr Gilliet was only allowed to bring his boy forward so that he could not say he had not been able to make bis .grievances known. The Court thought the assault a very unmanly one, and would fine tbe defendant £5 and costs including solicitors' fee. The defendant Baid if the same thing happened again he would — Here he was interrupted by Constable Morton demanding the fine from him, and what he would do *l:d not transpire. PROHIBITION ORDIK. Thomas Currie applied for a prohibition order to prevent James Marshall from wasting his substance in drink. The defendant did not object to the order and it was accordingly granted, to have effect from Kangitata to Timaru and Pleasant PoiDt. CIVIL CASKS. G. J. Mason v. E, Hornbrook—Claim £3 13s 3d.—Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. G. J. Mason v. J. Wishard —Claim £3 J7 B , —Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. The Court then adjourned.