Nunnington schoolmaster charged with assault

(With thanks to Malcolm Smith for sharing this article from the Malton Messenger of 1 June 1989.)

Charles Magson, labourer, summoned Andrew Wintersgill, the Master of the National School at Nunnington, for having assaulted his son, Tom Magson, a lad of eight years, on the 8th May last. Mr R Peirson, Solicitor appeared for the defence on behalf of the National Union of Elementary Teachers. The following evidence was adduced –

Tom Magson said that he attended the Nunnington School. On the 8th day of May, the Master, gave him the cane for staying at home half a day. The Master struck him on four different occasions; he struck him below his back and over his hands. He admitted that he often stayed away from school, but not without his mother’s knowledge. The afternoon he was caned, he did not bring a note from his mother, he asked for one, but she did not give him it.

Whilst the lad was giving his evidence, and subsequently Mrs Magson, the mother of the boy, behaved in so insolent and annoying manner by her interference that the Magistrates threatened her removal out of court.

Charles Magson, the father of the boy, stated that he met his wife coming for him as he was leaving work. He went home with her, and she showed him seven black marks below the lad’s back. He said all they could do was summon the Schoolteacher.

Cross examination

Mr Peirson: Do you not know there is a rule at the Nunnington School that when a boy is absent, he is expected to take a note to the Master.

Witness: My wife sent notes; but what occasion was there when my wife went to see the Master.

Mr Peirson: He was absent 143 times last year.

Witness: It was through sickness.

Selina Magson, the mother of the boy, said that going along Nunnington, two lads named Holmes and Brydon, came up to her and one remarked that the schoolmaster had ‘planted her son properly’. Witness admitted that her son was playing in an adjoining field and that he did not complain to her. Mr Lesley remarked that the boy had not apparently thought much about his marks for he did not offer to show them to his mother or to complain to her.

Witness: He would probably have shown me them at night. She took him home and examined him and saw the seven marks. The Magistrate said it seemed clear that the witness knew of the existing rule at the school that she ought to have sent a note when her son was absent.

Judgement

For the defendant, Mr Peirson remarked that his client had been six or seven years a Master and this was the first complaint that had ever been made against him. It had been a rule that if a boy stayed away from school, he afterwards brought a note to explain the absence. Mrs Magson knew the rule and she defied it.

The Rev. J Hill said the Bench were unanimously of the opinion that the case should be dismissed as the Magistrates considered that the Master had done no wrong in punishing the boy. Mr Hill afterwards told the defendant that if any threats were offered him by Nunnington people, he had to make application to the Magistrates and protection would be afforded to him.

What do you think?

Your views are important, and your fellow readers would love to hear your opinion, so share your thoughts in the comments box below, and thank you for your time and generosity.