Headmaster in court after forcing boy to be caned

He ordered the boy to bend down and touch his toes, but the boy refused and when Mr Robb held him he resisted. It was then necessary to hold him across a desk, and the strokes were duly administered. He (witness) was cool and did not use all his strength. The act of running out of school and defying the teacher was a very serious breach of discipline. – Headmaster prosecuted in 1904 for inflicting unreasonable punishment after caning a boy.

Mr Blomfeld, SM, was engaged at the Onehunga Police Court this morning in hearing a charge brought by Constable Tapp against Mr McIntosh, headmaster of the Onehunga Public School, of ill-treating his son by inflicting unreasonable punishment.

Mr Parr, instructed by the Educational Institute, defended the master. Constable Tapp (who is also clerk of the Court) conducted his own case.

Sidney Tapp, aged 12, said that in school on April 19^th a boy named Willie Johnson threw a piece of rag at his face, and he returned it. He was consequently sent for a caning, but he was so afraid because he had “such a thrashing” before, and he ran home. Next morning he was called out into a corridor where Mr Robb held him across a desk, while Mr McIntosh hit him six hard blows with a cane. They made marks on him.

Constable Tapp: How do you know?

Witness: Because I saw them in a looking glass. (Laughter.)

Constable Tapp: Was it easy to sit down?

Witness: No; not for two or three days.

Mr Parr, prior to cross-examination, said the thrashing was intended to cover two acts of misconduct, one of which occurred on the Wednesday before Good Friday.

Witness, in reply to Mr Parr, said the offence at that time consisted in swinging between two desks. Miss Bull, his teacher, ordered him out to be caned.

Mr Parr: Did she cane you?

Witness: No; I pulled my hand away.

Continuing, witness said Mr Hannah, Miss Bull’s pupil teacher, took him to the headmaster’s room to be caned, but the headmaster was out, and he then ran out of the school. His mother would not let him go to school next day. It was a week or more later when the second offence occurred, and he was taken into the corridor to be caned.

Mr Parr: Didn’t Mr McIntosh tell you to bend over to be caned?

Witness: Yes.

Mr Parr: And you would not do so?

Witness: No.

Mr Parr: And then he went to get the desk?

Witness: Yes.

Mr Parr: Didn’t Mr Robb advise you to take your punishment properly?

Witness: Yes.

Mr Parr: And you refused?

Witness: Yes. I told him he would hear about it when I got home.

Mr Parr: From whom was he to hear about it? Your father?

Witness: Yes.

The school cane was here produced, and after inspection was laid on the Court table.

Witness, continuing his replies, frankly admitted that he did not behave any better after returning to the class.

To his father, witness said he remembered a former occasion when he got fifteen cuts on the back from Mr McIntosh, and he could not stand upright. It was on account of that beating that he was afraid of Mr McIntosh.

William Johnson, the schoolboy who began the rag-throwing episode, gave evidence of Tapp being ordered out to the corridor to be beaten.

Constable O’Grady said he examined young Tapp’s body after the thrashing. There were four or five marks on the lower part of the body which appeared to be pretty severe.

To Mr Parr: They were ordinary black marks such as would be caused by smart blows with a cane.

Constable Tapp, the boy’s father, said the boy after the beating could not sit down. He measured several severe marks on him. One mark was 3½ inches long by 1 inch wide, another 3½ by 1½, another 2½ by1¼, another 2 by ¾, and a fifth 1½ by ¾. The marks were swollen, and were red, black and blue in colour and were evidence of blows which should not have been inflicted on a child.

Witness, continuing, said he did not object to reasonable punishment. On a former occasion Mr McIntosh beat the boy so severely that he could not stand upright. He refrained from complaining at that time.

To Mr Parr: He wrote a complaint to the headmaster after the second beating, but did not go to see him. He admitted that his boy was addicted to childish tricks like other boys, and required to be chastised, but not so severely.

Mr Parr: Do you consider four strokes of a cane across the buttocks would be unreasonable in view of his frequent insubordination?

Witness: Yes, if put on with force by a strong man on a small boy.

Mr Blomfield said he was convinced from the evidence that punishment was deserved and was inflicted at a proper time; the only question was whether the punishment was unduly severe.

William McIntosh, headmaster, said the present was the second occasion on which the boy had run out of school. He sent a teacher to see Constable Tapp on the matter, but got no satisfaction, and decided to inflict the punishment himself. He took the boy to the corridor near his room and summoned Mr Robb (his first assistant) to witness the punishment. This was his invariable rule.

He ordered the boy to bend down and touch his toes, but the boy refused and when Mr Robb held him he resisted. It was then necessary to hold him across a desk, and the strokes were duly administered. He (witness) was cool and did not use all his strength. The act of running out of school and defying the teacher was a very serious breach of discipline.

Constable Tapp: Did you not stand back when you were caning him and then swing forward to strike him as though you were using a cat-of-nine tails?

Witness: No; certainly not.

Constable Tapp: You never do that when you are beating the boys?

Witness: No.

Constable Tapp: Don’t you know that the boys are afraid of you?

Witness: No, I don’t know that.

Constable Tapp: Isn’t it a fact that you are a little bit hot-headed sometimes and lose your temper with the boys?

Mr Parr: It’s the fathers that seem to get hot-headed.

Constable Tapp (to witness): Are you a good judge, without feeling it, of what severe punishment is? (Laughter.)

Mr Parr: Do you suggest that the headmaster should always be caned first?

Constable Tapp: Is it not a fact that the boys who play truant are afraid to go to school because of the severity of the punishment?

Witness: No. I never punish too severely.

Mr Robb, first assistant, described the infliction of punishment while he held the boy across a desk in such a way that he could not move. The blows were delivered from the height of the shoulder, and were smart, but not too severe.

To Constable Tapp: It was not true that on former occasions he had asked the headmaster not to be too severe on the boys. There was less caning in this school than in any other he had known.

Dr Pabst said he examined the boy after the thrashing, and found a few marks on each buttock from ¾ inches to 1 inch wide. The appearance of a bruise was not a good guide as to the severity of a stroke, as the appearances would vary widely with different people. The boy, being not very healthy, would mark easily.

Mr Blomfield said unless a master used sufficiently severe punishment to act as a deterrent it would be useless to punish. It was clear from the boy’s evidence that the punishment did not act as a deterrent, because he went back to the class and again misbehaved. The case would therefore be dismissed, with costs against the constable.

 

Extracted from Auckland Star (New Zealand), 9 May 1904.

Traditional School Discipline

Traditionalschooldiscipline@gmail.com