Tuesday.—(Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, R.M.) Thrashing a Schoolboy.

Waikato Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2086, 19 November 1885, Page 2

Tuesday.— (Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, R.M.) Thrashing a Schoolboy.

Joiiv M. Murray, head niaater «>f the HainiHoii We«t School, wm charged with unlawfully and without provocation beating one William Voice, by utriking him on the Ann w itli a c»ne. The circumstineex of the case were a* follows:— On Sund.vv, the Sth init., two hoys belonging to the Hamilton Wc-t | Public School, named respectively Voice and Elliott, intuited Mr Young, the musical te.icher of the school, by nrlt.iting in his presence hm manner of conducting the mimic lemons. Mr Young repotted this to Mr Murray, the head master, who caned Vnico for that and other offences. Tho prosecutor, for whom Mr O'Neill appcirml, contended that .is the offence wascotr nutted beyond the precinct* of the (.chnnl, the, he.\duw<ter hud no authority to inflict punishment. The defendant, through Mr H.iy, contended lh.it Voice w,«h c.ined not only for the otTencp reported by Mr Yminß, but for a number of prior offencen, for \% Inch he had been threatened to Iw p\in\««lied^ if brought before the headmaster again. Thin offenco was merely the point of culmination of a Hcriesof offences. Mr Hay contended that the head master wa< clearly npht in punching a scholar for any otfence which waa committed to any teacher in the school, no nutter where or when it occurred, if it wan calculated to nulnertthe discipline of the school. He «.»id that the ca^b before the court was entirely sub\erni\c of the discipline of the -chool. If pupil-* were allowed to miult their teacher* the moment they got out of the school bound*, there would bean end of discipline, mid lamkinism would become triumphant. He further contended that the information was b»d, inMiiiuch sm it was perfectly consistent with his client not haunff committed any offence. The information was for beating Voico with a ciuie, and it was admitted on all hiindu that a te.icher had .1 right to cano schol.irn without being linble f>>r an aw-ault. This being «n, there w.«* no ojfence disclosed. No excess of punishment w»8 charged, and it could not therefoin be giren in f\idence. Had e\ce-s been charged m the in formation and pro\ed, of course there must be a. conviction, but otherw i-..) there could not he. Tlio puni^huioiit w.ts inflicted for otfences committed m Hchool, *nd away from >thool, hut ntill connected with tho «ch«ol, .md he Mib mitted that the case inu-t be dismissed. His Worship, in .1 somewhat lengthy judgment, commented uiif*\<«Hnbly on the conduct of Mr Young in reporting the boy-*. .md tined tho hendm.nter Is, and costs £3 Us,