The Sun.
London, England, 1864-05-31 00:00:00

Brutal Assault by a Schoolmaster,

Edgar Glennie Smith, a schoolmaster residing at Beeken-
ham, was summoned yesterday at the Bromley petty ses-
sions, of which Mr. Alderman Wilson was chairman, for
having on the 12th inst. unlawfully assaulted and beaten a
little boy eight years of age, named Robert W. Ruck, son
of Mr NV. Ruck, a solicitor, residing at Grocers' Hall.
Mr Sergeant Ballantine appeared for the prosecution, and
Mr R. Adams for the defendant.
The case excited a considerable amount of interest, and
the small roc, . at the Bell Inn in which the magistrates
meet was crowded to excess during the hearing.
Mr Sergeant Ballantine, in opening the case, said that
the summons was taken out under the 24th and 25th of
Victoria, which gave to the magistrates the power of sum-
marily dealing with cases of this description in a manner
which they had not previously possessed. The defendant
was a gentleman keeping a private educational establish-
ment at Beckenham, and the complainant a child, eight
years of age, who had been placed under his care. The
father of the complainant, being desirous of sending two
of his sons to an establishment where they would be taken
care of, sent them down to Mr. Smith's school. As one of
the sons was of delicate health, suffering from glandular
swellings, it was considered necessary that they should be
sent to a school where they would be treated with the
greatest kindness. Accordingly the boys were sent to the
defendant's school on the express understanding that per-
sonal chastisement was on no account to be resorted to. and
it was upon the assurance that Mr. Smith would only use
persuasion and endeavour to win the love of the boys
that they were sent to his establishment. Notwithstand-
ing this, however, the conduct of the defendant towards
the younger boy was such as to render him unfit to
have the charge of children, and which he could not
but term brutal in the extreme. The boy was set
to learn lessons, and because he was unable to ac-
complish them to the satisfaction of the defendant, he
flew at him and beat him unmercifully about the face and
head, so as for a time to completely shatter his nervous sys-
tem. His head, face, and ears were fearfully bruised, and
although he was immediately placed under medical care the
marks of violence had not yet disappeared. The ordinary
excuse which schoolmasters put forward in such cases could
not be used hare, inasmuch as Mrs. Ruck—being of opinion
that personal chastisement did very little good to children—
had expressly stated that it should not be used to her boys ;
and in consequence of Al r. Smith's statement that he never
flogged his pupils she had been induced to send her sons to
his schools. The conduct, however, of the defendant on the
day in question was more like that of an Irish labourer
having no control over his temper than that of a man who
had charge of the education of children. The elder boy,after
his brother had been beaten, found means of writing to his
mother and relating the circumstances. The father, imme-
diately upon being made acquainted of the fact, went down
to the school, took his son away, and placed him under
medical care. He would call evidence to prove the state in
which the boy was found by his parents. His client brought
this case forward simply on public grounds, and he trusted
the Bench would so deal with it as to make it an example
to others who had the care of children.

Mrs. Esther Ruck, the mother of complainant, deposed
that her youngest son was of delicate health, suffering from
enlargement of the tonsils. When she first saw defendant
she asked whether his boys were ever beaten, as she strongly
objected to that mode of punishment. He replied that they
never were, remarking that he began by making a boy love
him. She consequently sent her sons on the 13th April.
On the 12th of May she received a letter from her eldest
boy, who stated that his brother had been severely beaten
by the defendant. Her husband immediately fetched
him from the school, when she found some bruises about
his head and face, his ears being completely black; there
were also marks over his nose and neck, and his eyes were
also blackened. She communicated with Dr. Jefferson,
who immediately attended him. His nervous system was
much shattered by the treatment he had received, and
when he moved about he complained of giddiness and pains
in tLe head. Sho could hardly say that ho had recovered
now. Two other medical gentlemen, Mr. Barford, of
Wokingham, and Mr. Burney, of Croydon, had also at-
tended him.

In cross-examiration by Mr. Adams, the witness said
she had distinctly told the defendant and his sister that her
son was suffering from ill health and must not be beaten.
Esther Ann Ruck, the daughter of the last witness, who
was present at the first interview with the defendant,
corroborated her mother's evidence in every particular.
Robert Ruck, the complainant, deposed that on the 12th
inst. he was unable to do the work set him by Mr. Smith,
who consequently struck him on the head and lace with
his hands, repeating it rtbotr, 30 times. Ho tried his best
to do the task, but was unable.
From the evidence of Dr. Jefferson, Mr. Barford, and
Mr. Burney, it appeared that the boy had been most bru-
tally handled, and that his health had thereby been consi •
derably impaired for some time. The bruises which they
found on his head, neck, and ears, must have been caused
by extreme violence.

Mr. W. Ruck, the father of the complainant, deposed to
having, in consequence of a letter from his eldest son, gone
down to the defendant's school at Beckenham, when he
found his youngest boy in the state already described.
In cross examination he admitted having used very
strong langu ige towards the defendant, and threatened to
knock him down, remarking that the state in which he
found his son made him lose all control over his temper.
Mr. Garrard, the boy's grandfather, corroborated the
statements of the former witnesses, with regard to the in-
juries inflicted on the complainant.
For the defence, Mr. Adams called

The defendant's sister, who stated that she was present
when Mrs. Ruck first saw her brother, and she did not
hear him say that he never beat his boys.

Robert Farquhar, an assistant to the defendant, said that
he had assisted in teaching Robert Ruck, aNd had found
him to be an obstinate boy, and deserved the thrashing
wh'ch the defendant had given him,

F,ve boys, named Henry Wilson, William Grove Parker
M'Crea, Henry Ilot, and Carlton Adams, wera called, and
stated that the complainant had not been severely beaten,
having only received a just punishment, which they would
not have objected to themselves.

la cross-examination by Mr Sergeantßallantine, M'Crea
admitted that the defendant had previously told him to say
that Robert Ruck had not been much hurt, and that he de-
served the punishment.

Mr Ottawell Watertield, of Sheen, with whom the de-
fendant had been a teacher for some years, and the Rev. W
Chalmers, rector of Beckenham, spoke to the defendant's'
character, stating that they believed him to be a quiet, good-
tempered man, and could not account for his having beaten
the boy Ruck.

Mr Sergeant Ballantine having replied upon the whole
case,

The magistrates retired, and after an absence of about a
quarter of an hour, returned, and fined the defendant £5.
There was a counter summons taken out by the defend-
ant Smith against Mr Ruck for an illegal alleged assault,
arising out of Mr Ruck having shaken his fist in the de-
fendant's face.

After a brief consultation, however, with Mr Sergeant
Ballanline, Mr Adams consented to withdraw it.
Me parties then left the court.

Another Benefit Society in Trouble.

At the Southwark Police Court yesterday, Mr Ody, the
solicitor, of Trinity. street, Borough, attended with a poor
man to ask for a summons against the treasurer and
trustees of the Helping Hand Benefit Society, held at
the \Vateruian's Arms, Barnham-street, Tooley-street, to
show cause why they neglected and refused to pay his client
John Huggins, a free member, a certain amount duo to him
from the sick fund of the society.
Mr. Ody said his client was a very poor man, and some
few years ago was induced to become a member of the Help-
ing Hand Benefit Society on account of the high promises
set forth in their book of rules. He paid his contributions
regularly, and considered himself entitled to any benefits
alluded to in the rules, one of which set forth that any mem-
ber becoming sick shall be entitled to 108. a week for so long
a time. His client unfortunately for himself became sick a
short time ago, and was compelled to declare himself on the
sick fund. He received the weekly sum regularly for a few
weeks, but all at once it was stopped, and when he went to
the society to know the reason, he was told that he had
been expelled because he had broken one of the rules of the
society by being out of his house beyond the hours specified
in the rules. He explained that the poor man was in want
of a loaf of bread, and while he was gone to a baker's near
his house for one, he was met by one of the stewards, and
he reported the circumstance to the society, and on that sole
account he was expelled.
The Clerk read the rule in question, and observed that
there could be no doubt that the rule applied to members
following some employment. It could never have contem-
plated a poor man being expelled for buying a loaf of bread.
Mr, Ody was of the same opinion, and ho contended that
it was a he-d case for this poor man. These societies, if
allowed to go on uncontrolled by the law, would be a curse
to the poor man instead of a benefit. 'Therefore ho hoped
his worship would grant the summons applied for.
The Clerk—ls the society enrolled according. to Act of
Parliament, and are the rules certified by Mr. Tidd Pratt?
Mr. Ody, after examining them carefully, replied in the
negative.
The Clerk told hikn that as such was the case the magis-
trate could not interfere. He must go to the C,unty Court.