The Newport (Shropshire) bench has dismissed summonses against Mr Walter Brooks, MA, headmaster of Newport Grammar School and two assistant masters, Mr William Harman and Mr L F Lowe, alleging a common assault on Frank Douglas Wright, aged 16. The assault was alleged to have been committed on December 7th, after the boy had been seen smoking out of school hours.
Mr Gilbert Griffiths, who appeared for the boy, submitted that the chastisement was unreasonable in the circumstances. Wright had been a pupil at the school for the past five years and had borne an exemplary character. There had been no complaint against him and he had never been thrashed or received any punishment of a serious nature until this occurrence.
On the day in question the boy left the school premises at the end of the school day in the company of another pupil called Williams and went to a cinema owned by his father. The operator at the cinema offered the two boys cigarettes and they walked along the street smoking. It was with his father's knowledge that young Wright occasionally smoked at home and in the street and he did not know that this was against the school regulations.
The next thing the two boys heard about the matter, said Mr Griffiths, was after school prayers the following morning when the headmaster dismissed all the pupils below form five, the senior school of some one hundred boys remaining behind. He called Wright and Williams before him and told them that they had been reported by a prefect for smoking in the street and that he was going to make an example of them both by publicly beating them.
Wright felt that is was a great disgrace to be caned before the senior school and he evaded the headmaster who then instructed two assistant masters to hold him in position. The boy ran out of the hall but was forcibly brought back and put across a sloping desk and held there by the two masters while he was flogged with the cane by Brooks in no gentle manner. The injuries produced were severe. The boy Williams was thrashed in turn, but accepted his punishment submissively.
Wright's father immediately went to see the headmaster and asked for a copy of the school rules. Brooks said that there was no printed rule regarding smoking in the street, but claimed it was generally known that the practice was forbidden. Frank Wright gave evidence that he had never been warned about smoking, had seen no printed rules and did not know it was against the rules.
Mr Haslam, for the defence, said the point was not whether Brooks had the authority to administer the punishment but whether it was excessive. The punishment, he contended, was not unreasonable. Mr W S Brooks, the headmaster, stated in evidence that he had in the past addressed the boys on proper conduct in the school and in the streets and had mentioned smoking in that context. When told he was to suffer a caning Wright had said 'I refuse' and dodged away and had been brought back struggling and kicking. He was given four strokes, following which he lay on the floor bellowing. Williams was then caned, accepting the punishment with good grace and apologising for his misconduct. Wright was then ordered to get up and bend over in the proper way. He received a fifth and final stroke and also apologised. Cross examined, Brooks said the beatings had been give publicly to impress the pupils and give support to the prefects.
The chairman of the bench said that the headmaster had been quite within his rights in administering salutary corporal punishment. The boy Wright was well aware of the school's attitude as regards smoking. The magistrates considered that the caning had been properly carried out. It would have been far better if Wright had taken his punishment like a man. All three summonses were dismissed and costs were awarded to the defendants, the chairman commenting: 'We consider the case ought never to have been brought.'
A higher court lays down judgement
Frank Wright's father was the chairman of Newport Urban District Council and obviously not a man to be trifled with. The case was later taken to the King's Bench Division of the High Court when some interesting observations were made by the judges and counsel:
Mr Justice Swift Suppose there was a rule that a boy should not visit public houses or drink spirits, and a boy was taken into a public house by his father. I should say that the schoolmaster would be perfectly justified in administering corporal punishment. Indeed, both father and son would deserve it, although, as usual, it would be the schoolboy who would suffer.
Mr Pratt If the Newport magistrates were correct, the cane was hanging suspended over the poor boy not only while he was at school but after he had returned home. His whole life was spent under the shadow of that threat.
The Lord Chief Justice That is merely a picturesque way of saying that he was required to obey the school rules. (Laughter).
The High Court rejected the appeal, finding That there was a rule at this grammar school prohibiting smoking by pupils during the school term whether on or off the premises. The boy Wright was aware of the rule and deliberately broke it. The corporal punishment administered was a reasonable and proper punishment for the breach of the rule and reasonably and properly administered. The father of the boy, by sending him to this school, authorised the schoolmaster to administer reasonable punishment to the boy for breach of a reasonable school rule.