ASSAULT ON SON

Wairarapa Times-Age, 6 August 1938, Page 4

ASSAULT ON SON

FATHER GETS THREE WEEKS' HARD LABOUR. CONDITIONS OF PERMISSIBLE PUNISHMENT. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, Aug. 5. For assault upon his 11-year-old son, at present an inmate of the Mount Albert Boys' Home. Alfred William Ruff Astle was sentenced to three weeks’ hard labour by Mr C. Orr Walker, S.M., in the Magistrates’ Court. The case was heard last Friday, the magistrate then reserving his decision until today. Astle, who was defended by Mr Vialoux, denied a charge of having assaulted the boy. It was admitted that a thrashing had been administered by defendant without malice on his part. The magistrate referred to the opinion expressed by Dr Coldicutt, who said the boy was undersized for his age and physically not very robust. It had been proved and admitted that the boy was beaten by defendant with a cane on and about the buttocks and’ * upon his bare skin. A parent or school- ily! master, according to the law as it stood at present, might for the purpose of correcting what was evil in a child, inflict corporal punishment, always provided it was moderate and reasonable. If it was immoderate and excessive in its nature or degree the punishment was unlawful and constituted assault. “It has been proved by cogent evidence that the chastisement inflicted by defendant exceeded the bounds of moderation and reason,” said Mr Orr Walker. “Moreover, the boy’s experienced headmaster, who was called as a witness by the defence, gave it as his opinion that if the marks on the boy’s body were as described by the evidence and were caused by a cane, then they indicated excessive punishment. “In coming to the conclusion I do, I have considered the facts proved by the defence, including those referring to the conduct of the boy. There is at the present day a large body of public opinion that even moderate corporal punishment, except in very rare cases, is futile, and, indeed, may be harmful. Be that as it may, the law is very definite that chastisement if inflicted must not be excessive and unreasonable. “As there are degrees of punishment, so there are degrees of excess. I Conclude from the evidence that the excess was considerable and shocks the conscience of reasonable men. The infliction of a fine would be inappropriate, and I find it necessary to impose a term of imprisonment. Probation would not be a suitable punishment. “After mature consideration,” said the magistrate, “I fix that term at three weeks with hard labour, which, I am satisfied, cannot be considered as excessive or unreasonable.”