SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST A SCHOOL TEACHER.

Waikato Argus, Volume V, Issue 337, 6 September 1898, Page 4

SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST A SCHOOL TEACHER.

A SPKCIAL meeting of the Cambridge West School Committee was held on Saturday. Present :—Messrs W. Allen (chairman), J. Keeley, G. Keeley, W. Vosper, W. Tucker, W. Perkins and Hill (Secretary). There were also present in the room Messrs Swarbrick (of Hamilton), W. F. Buckland, W. Hickey, senr. aud ]unr., W. Wilsou, W. Dean, P E. Stevens and Mrs Bruce. The Chairman said the meeting had been called in consequence of hia having received a letter from Mr William Hickey to the effect that oue of his boys had been seriously injured, he understood that he had been thrown over the fence. He (the Chairman) could not believe without seeing the boy what he had suffered. He did not know until the day previous to writiug that the boy's leg would not have to come off. He thought the Chairman should call a meeting in order that the guilty should be punished. He was led to believe that it is Mrs Bruce, Tucker and Jarrett ou«ht to apDeai before the Committee. The great thing is to do to others as you would like to be done by. The Chairman said on receiving the above he considered it his duty to call a meetiug in order that they might find out what bad really been done. They had all doubtless seen an apology published by Mr Looker. From what he could make out it was Mr Looker who first started the report about the lad havin beeng rr»l. treated ; but that had all been publicly retracted, so what could they do. He had asked all who were likely to know anything about the matter to attend ; he had askfd Mr Looker, but he refused to come, adding that he had just got a bill from the Argus for publishing the apology, and that had quite tilled him up. Mr Buckland said he appeared to watch the case on behalf of Hickey, and Mr Swarbrick said he appeared for Mrs Bruce, and, with the permission of the committee, would call wituesses and ask a few questions. All they wanted was to elicit the truth. The Chairman said that was all they wanted, and it would be better for the school that the matter should be thoroughly thrashed out. The complainant was first heard, and stated that, on the sth August, his little son John was running home across his (Hickey's) paddock when school was over, and that Mrs Bruce sent for him to come back. Two boys chased and caught him, and took him hack through two fences. When the boy got home his mother thought he looked pale, and asked him if he had got a *' lambing." He said his foot had been hurt. Subsequently, witness had to hold the boy in bed for two nights. He understood the boy Jarrett had kicked his son, but he thought it would be by accident. It was nine or ten days after that happened before the doctor was called in. The boy was in good health before, and was not lame. A man named Looker had told William Wilson that the lad was thrown over the fences, but since then he had repudiated it in print.—Replying to Mr Swarbrick, witness said he had never seen anything done to his child ; all the information he had got was from his son Michael, aged nine. The doctor threatened to fetch the police, because they were treating the lad wrongly. The lad was hurt nine days before the doctor saw him. It happened on a Friday, and the lad had not since been to school, except a half day on the following Wednesday. If the Bchool roll showed that the boy had been present days since he was hurt, it was wrong. He was not lame before ; he had been in the Hospital just over a fortnight. He was sure the incident referred to happened on Friday, sth August last. The boy Michael Hickey said his brotl.er John ran away and was chased by Bill Jarrett and Harry Tucker. They took him back to school; they lifted him. He did not know if his brother's legs were right before, but he had a bad leg afterwards. The boys put his brother through one fence and over the other ; Mrs Bruce held the wires up while he was put through. He was not knocked about, but his brother afterwards said his ankle was hurt. His brother only went to school one half day after the day he was chased. William Wilson said he saw the boy a day or two after the occurrence referred to, and the lad told him he was not hurt being put over the fences, but that Jarrett had kicked him. He saw the lad the Sunday before and he could run all right then. He did not know of the accident till Looker told him, neither did he know when it occurred, but he called to see the boy on either the Thursday or Friday. Mr Buckland said those were all the witnesses Hickey would call. Mr Swarbrick said his client had every desire to elicit the truth about the matter, which he was informed was as follows :—Mrs Bruce on going into the playground found a little boy crying, and she was informed the boy Hickey had been hitting him. Hickey was running away and she called out "Stop, Hickey." The boys Jarrett and Tucker then caught him and brought him back without injuring him in any way. The school roll showed that the boy had attended school on three days since that time. The lad had a bad foot previously and it had been neglected. The doctor went to the parents and threatened to call the police, saying the illness of the child was the result of shocking negligence. Even if the child had been injured the parents were still as culpable for neglecting it. He would call several children and would then get at the truth. William Jarrett stated how the boy ran away, and Mrs Bruce called out to stop him. He and Harry Tucker gave chase. Tucker caught the boy and they carried .him back between them. They held up the wires of the first fence and he rolled under by himself. He walked across the road, Mrs Bruce having hold of his hand. He was put through between the two bottom wires of the second fence, and no one knocked him about. That was all he saw of the matter. —This boy was cross-questioned at some length, but his evidence was not shaken. There was a. rather unseemly squabble between the two legal gentlemen at this period.—Jarrett said Hickey. was not lifted over any of the fences aud Mrs Bruce did not have to lift up her arms to catch him. It happened on the last day that he (Jarrett) went to school. Harry Tucker's evidence agreed with that given by Jarrett, except that be said he carried the boy himself. He also stated that Hickey was lame previous to the day the accident was reputed to have taken place, for he walked on his toes. Lizzie Chambers and Lucy Hamilton, the latter a pupil teacher, both saw the boy given into Mrs Bruce's charge, and stated he was not in any way ill-treated. Miss J. R. Dean said she had visited the boy Hickey when he was at home ill. His foot was very much swollen and looked as if it was gathering. It subsequently burst in two places and discharged considerably. Mrs Hickey said the child had, she thought, a stone bruise, for which she generally applied hot water, but in that iustaucc it did not appear to do any good. Witness' mother suggested poulticing, and advised Mrs Hickey to get the doctor, but she would not. Her mother felt worried sit the doctor not being sent for, as she did not know if poulticing was correct. Her mother then saw Mr Hickey, who said he would get the doctor if it was necessary ; but he was not sent for. On the Thursday Mrs Hickey sent to say the lad was much worse ; she ran over and found the boy had fainted. Mrs Hickey stated she had asked Mr Fitzgerald who was passing, to tell the doctor to conic. When Dr. Murdoch arrived, he said it was a most shameful I

case of neglect or the lad would never have been in such a state. If it had been taken in time the tremble could have been stayed. The child had been suffering from stone braise before the day lie was caught and brought back to the school. Tn answer to Mr Buc'daud, witness said Mrs Hickey was willing to send for the doctor ; but her husband was not. The boy did not mention having been kicked ; but liis mother told her he had been complaining about a stone bruise. Mrs Bruce said that on Wednesday, I 3rd August, when she went out after the school whs over, she found a little boy ciying. She asked what was the matter and the little fellow said " Jack " Hickey had been hitting him. She saw young Hickey running away and she called out " Stop John." The boy did not stop and she went to the wooden fence and got through. Then she saw Hairy Tucker carrying the boy back He brought him to the fence and he (Hickey) got through it, she holding up the wires. At that time Michael aud Annie Hickey were standing in the school grounds. She had no intention of punishing the lad, and did not do so ; but she wished him to understand that he must not run away when told to s'.op. She asked him why he had hit the other boy and he said " because he gave me cheek." She remarked to him : " I see you can run well, sore foot and all." The boy was laughing when he came back with her, and was not hurt by anyone so far as she kaew. The previous day he had been sitting with his foot up when in school as it was sore. Hickey came to school both morning and eveniug the two following days, and was then absent till Wednesday, when he came again for half a day. His brother Michael afterwards said John did not come as he had no bonnet or cap ; but she could not say for certain which term he used. In answer to Mr Buckland, witness said she only called out " Stop, John," and did not tell or intend anyone to run after the lad. She did not know that anyone was after the boy till she reached the fence, for she could not see from the school ground. The child was not crying. MrDean, the schoolmaster, produced the roll, which showed that the last day that William Jarrett attended the school was Wednesday, 3rd of August. It also showed that John Hickey was present the two following days. Mr Swarbrick said the evidence had proved it was a most trivial and unfounded case. There was not a particle of it that proved Mrs Bruce in the wrong, but it had brought out Mr Hickey's action in a most uufortunate manner. He would not have the doctor to the child, and then when he found he would probably get into trouble if the child died or had +o lose a limb he brought this abomiuable charge, Even supposing the child had been hurt the parents would still be liable for neglect. It suited Hickey to say the boy met with an accident on the Friday, but fortunately they had been able to prove conclusively that if the lad was injured it was on the Wednesday and that he attended school on the two following days. Mr Buckland pointed out that Hickey was right when he said the boy had only attended the school one half day after the Friday. All the witnesses agreed that the man Looker was in the road and saw what really took place, and he would ask the committee not to come to a decision till that man had been made to give evidence. The Chairman said they had no power to compel Looker to give evidence, and even if they had they could not believe him after the public retraction he had made. The committee then retired at 10.15 p.m. to consider what they should do in the matter. The committee were only a few moments in arriving at a decision, which was that Mrs Bruce was entirely exonerated from any blame in the matter. That settles the business as far as the school is concerned.