The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-07-27 00:00:00

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE BYLAWS

School

OF THE EDUCATIONAL ACT.
At the Thames Police-court, in London, William Batchelor,
of 4, South-street Arches, Reuben Wood, of 4, Cannon-place,
Widtechapel Thomas Crook, 5, John's place, Commercial-
road ; 51 ilham Letter, 31, Franklin-street ; and William
Pearson, of 5, South-atriaet, have been charged, on sum-
monses, at tie Instance of the School Board for London,
with non-compliance with the bylaws of the Education Act.
Mr. Sydney (ledge, solicitor to the School Board for London,
prosecuted. There were two other summonses against per-
sons for not sending their children to school, but the de-
fendants were not in atten.lance.

Mr. Gedge read the Act of Parliament referring to
the attendance of children at school, which stipulates
that the parents of children not less than five years nor
more than 13 years old, as may be fixed by the laws,
are to cause such children (unless there is some reason-
able excuse) to attend school.
In the first case against the defendant Letter, de-
fendant said that he was employed at the Bow Brewery
and had no opportunity of being at home to see that
his daughter, Mary Ann Letter, attended school. She
had been to the Cloburn School, in the Coburn-road,
for three or four years, but he had taken her away to
attend upon an infant. Mr. (ledge raid the Board
would be perfectly satisfied if the defendant sent his
child to school for ten hours per week, when she would
be termed a half-timer. If she received a certificate
from the school where she attended as to her com-
petency, she would be exempted from going to school
at all. The defendant was remanded for a month, on
the understanding that he sent his daughter to a
school in the meantime, which he promised to comply
with.
Thomas Crook said his son, aged eleven years, was
unable to attend school through illness. His son had
been ill for the last six weeks, and he could call several
witnesses to substantiate his statement. William
Dean, an inspector employed by the School Board,
said he called at the defendant Crook's hou-e, and
was told that young Crook was sent to the Baker-
street School, but wa, not admitted there through
(ring under the requisite age, but was after-
wards seut to the Commercial School in the Com-
mercial-road. The mother of the boy said her son
defied her, and threw the money away that she gave
him to attend school. He saw the child ton days ago,
it was then perfectly well and running about the streets
without any shoes or stockings on. The father and
mother never complained to him that their son was
too ill to attend school. The boy could not have been
very ill On one occasion when he called, for he swore
most lustily at him and his mother.
The defendant said he was perfectly willing to send
his son to the Commercial-road School.
Mr. Lushington (the magistrate) said it was a reas in-
able excuse if tie child was ill that it was not sent to
school, but there was nothing said to the inspector or
auy excuse made about the child being ill when he
called at thrir house. He remanded the case for a
month, and if the defendant did not attend, a penalty
would be hifficted.
Reuben Wood pleaded guilty to not complying with
the rules of the Board, but alleged as a reason that he
had been in th• country with his son, previous to
which he had sent him to a school in the Mile-end-
road. Inspector Dean said be called at the defend-
ant's house on the 15th of May, when a promise was
made that the child should be sent to schooL On the
15th of June he called again and saw the boy. On the
28th of June he agaisa called at the house, and was in-
formed that the defendant had taken his son into the
country, but when he returned he sent him to
echooL The case was remanded for a week, for the de-
fendant to send his child to school in the mean time.
William Pearson pleaded " Guilty " to not sending
his two children, Sarah and George to school, but
alleged as a reason that he was only a casual dock
labourer, and had not sufficient means to enable
him to clothe his children and send them decently
to echooL Mr. Sydney (ledge said there was a
school just by the defendant where only a penny
per week was charged. There were plenty of child-
ren in that school with scanty clothing. Both the
defendant and his wife were in work. The Board
had got the power to remit the school fee if neces-
sary, where the parent of the child satisfies the Board
that las is unable from poverty to pay the same, The

_
magistrate said it was no excuse for the defendant to
allege that he could not provide hie children with clothea
to send them to school, or that he could not afford to
Pay the sum of twopence per week for the education of
his two children. The defendant would be doing a
better thing for his children by sending them to school
and complying with the law than having to pay penal-
ties over and over again if he did not comply with the
law and send them to school, lie adjourned the case
for a month to enable the defendant to find a school to
send his children to.

William Batchelor pleaded guilty to not sending Ms
daughters, Martha and Elizabeth, to schooL It was
proved by an inspector that the defendant's daughters
i were seen playing n the streets. The defendant had
been served with a notice to attend the meeting. but
did not comply with it. The defendant, who behaved
in a most boisterous and impudent manner, said the
children were not under his control or care, and he was
not going to pay for them. Mr. Sydney Gedge main-
tained that could not be offered as an excuse, for if
parents said that there would be an end of the matter.
The present case was so different from the others that
he ought to press for a penalty. The magistrate in.
flieted a fine of sa. in the cage of the eldest girl, aged
twelve years, and adjourned the case of the younger
child for a month, to see if the defendant sent it to
school.

At Maidstone the local School B mrd has been active
of late in enforcing the provisions of the Education
At, several persons having been compelled to comply
with the law. The last case was that of a painter,
who was summoned to show why he had not sent three
of his children to school. Mr: Day, the inspector to the
School Board, said that having discovered the absence
of the defendant's children from the St. Paul's Na-
tional schools, he made inquiries and found that the
father VIDA out of work. Application was made to the
Board, and the fees were directed to be paid for the
children from the 19th of January. This was done
up to the end of March, and it being then found that
the defendant was in work, the payment of the school
fees by the B-ard was stopped. Then the defendant
ceased to send his children to school, and the witness
believed they had been idle ever since. The Mayor
imposed a penalty of Is. and costs in each case, in
default of payment 21 days' hard labour.

At the Worship-street Police-court, in London, on
Tuesday, Fix persons were summoned for not having
sent their children to school, in accordance with the
provisions of the Education Act of 1670. In only one
case was a fine inflicted, the other defendants having
promised to comply with the requirements of the law