PROSECUTION UNDER THE EDUCATION ACT.

Waikato Times, Volume XVI, Issue 1386, 21 May 1881, Page 2

PROSECUTION UNDER THE EDUCATION ACT.

Geo. Hallo way was charged, yesterday, at the R.M. Court, Cambridge, with a breach of Clause 89 of the "Education Act ISS7, " by which it is provided that "The parent or guardian of every child not less than seveu or more than thirteen years of age shall, in case such child lives within the distauce of two miles, measured according to the nearest road from a public school, within a school district, send such child to school for at least onehalf of the period in each year during which the school is usually opened." The complaint was laid at the suit of the chairman of the Cambridge East School Committee, who appeared in person to prosecute. Defendant pleaded that the child in question was above the age specified in the Act. In support of the complaint the local school-master produced his attendance roll, which showed that defendant's daughter was entered as being of the age of eleven years List January. The information as to age had been got from the parents through the child. The child was asked her age, and on replying she did not know, was instructed to inquire of her parents. Subsequently bhe stated she had done &O, and the age as set forth by the register was the result of that information. The child had subsequently absented itaelf from the school, in breach of the Act, and a notice requiring it to attend had been served on defendant. This being the case for the prosecution, His Worship held that more explicit information as to the child's age was required. Prosecutor replied that the committee could do no other thing than rely upon the age stated by the parents j if that was held insufficient for the requirements of the Act he did not see how it was at all possible to overtake defaulters. The Bench ruled that in this particular case the information had not oome from the parents, but was obtained from the child, although said to have been given to the child by the patents. That could not be held sufficient for the purposes of the Act, and the complaint was dismissed. James E. McFarlane \va^ chaiged with a similar offence. He pleaded guilty, and having made certain explanations in extenuation, and promised stricter observance of the Act in future, the complaint was likewise dismissed.