CRIME IN OLD ROTHERHAM: Punished for the killing of a jackdaw

In 1857 a new Grammar School was erected by the Feoffees on Moorgate and it was there on Monday December 14 1868 when the Rev John James Christie was charged with the assault of one of his boys. The victim was described as ‘a young, delicate looking, 13 year old boy’ called Arthur Harris who was the son of Jarvis Harris, an iron founder of Moorgate. A week previously on December 7 the boy who was a day boarder, had gone home for his dinner about 300 yards from the school premises. On his return he found what he thought was an injured crow, and he showed it to the other boys.

Some of the boys seeing the bird was in distress stated that he ought to put it out of its misery, whilst others offered him money not to kill it, saying it could be nursed back to health. Harris was debating what to do, when the school bell rang to call the boys back into the classroom. Without giving it any more thought he bashed the bird’s brains out against the wall and rejoined his friends in class. No more was heard about the matter until the following day in the morning assembly, when Rev Christie enquired who had killed the bird. Harris immediately owned up to killing it and he described the circumstances.

Rev Christie was furious at the death of, what turned out to be his pet jackdaw, and told Harris he did not believe him, and he would be punished by a flogging. When the boys returned back to class, the headmaster called him to the front and castigated him for his action. He ordered him to lie face down on a form at the front of the class, but Arthur refused and walked back to his seat.

At that point Rev Christie followed the boy and in front of the other boys beat him with his cane with such ferocity that Harris thought he was going to kill him. During the afternoon break time Harris decided he was going to tell his parents, and he left the school without permission and went home. At the time his father was ill in bed, and going upstairs he told him what had happened. The boy was examined by his parents and they found many severe wounds across his shoulders and down his arm, which in the course of time became very discoloured.

A man who at been at the house when the boy complained of his treatment from the head master, was Mr J Brown of the Masbrough Iron Works. He had seen the boy’s condition and asserted that he had been ‘unmercifully thrashed’. His father was so angry at this treatment that he took a summons out against Rev Christie. The news of the summons spread through the town to the extent that when the head master was brought into the court, the room was packed. The magistrates were the Hon F S Wortley and H Otter Esq, and the prosecution was led by Mr Whitfield. He told the court that he did not intend to deny that the boy killed the bird, but because it was badly injured he killed it outright rather than prolonging its sufferings. Instead of the headmaster inflicting such punishment as he had, he should have cautioned the boy for what he had done. 

Mr Whitfield stated that by law if a headmaster chose to inflict a punishment on his pupils, it must be done in a reasonable and moderate manner. Otherwise it might be seen as an infringement, which stated that any excess of punishment in such a case amounted to common assault. He added that in this case, whether the boy was deserving of punishment was immaterial. Mr Whitfield told the magistrates that; he owed it to Mr Christie to say that he had with no exception all the qualifications of a teacher of youth, and that it was ‘simply his infirmity of temper which had led him to commit the act now before you’. 

In conclusion he told the bench that since the attack, the boy had been unable to lift his arm beyond a certain height, nor could he lie in bed upon that side. He stated categorically that the punishment that had been inflicted the boy was excessive and immoderate, and it reflected badly on the character of the headmaster, Mr Christie.

The first witness was the boy, Arthur Harris himself ,who stated that he had attended the school for two years. He then revealed to the court the bruises on his arms and shoulders which, a week after they had been inflicted, were still very discoloured. Harris was cross examined by Mr Christie’s solicitor, Mr Edwards.

The boy told him that he had once kept a pet jackdaw himself, but did not at the time think that the bird was one. Harris added that he had not been told that it was a pet and he just thought that the wing had been damaged and the bird was unable to fly. When Mr Edwards asked him if Rev Christie had been a kind or an unkind master, Arthur replied that ‘he has been a little of both sir’. The boy’s father Mr Harris then took the stand and he described his son’s shoulders after the assault, as ‘being like a piece of raw beef’ and ‘from the shoulder blades to his elbow was a mass of weal’s which were black and blue’. 

The next witness was Dr Shearman of Moorgate who told the magistrates that he gave his evidence with some reluctance, as Mr Christie was a friend and near neighbour of his. He said that he had examined the boy at Mr Harris’s house, and added that he thought the boy had been barbarously treated. He offered his opinion that ‘the marks and bruises were the result of excessive and immoderate beating and must have caused the boy a great deal of pain. The treatment the boy had received was calculated to injure his general health, and would doubtless take away his appetite’.

When he was being cross examined, Dr Shearman stated that it was the first time he had treated the boy professionally. He said that if it had happened to a son of his ‘Mr Christie would know what he would get for it’. Mr Edwards then told them that it was with great reluctance that he had appeared in the case, but he was sure that Mr Harris had been only influenced by right motives. He would not have brought the matter forward if he did not truly believe that it needed investigation. He asked the bench to consider his parental feeling, which had been aroused with regard to the punishment that his son had received, and implored them to make allowances for that in their conclusions.

Mr Edwards urged them also to consider the statements of those given in a calmer condition, concluding ‘with the exception being the evidence of Dr Shearman who was known to be strongly opposed to any kind of physical punishment, and therefore he must be treated as a prejudiced witness’. 

Mr Edwards stated that both the boys themselves and their parents generally considered Mr Christie’s treatment of his pupils to be one of a humane character, and one in which parents might safely leave their children. He said that the boy had wantonly and cruelly killed a pet jackdaw and claimed that he did it contrary to the expressed wishes of his fellow pupils. He stated categorically that in his opinion the boy had committed the act ‘from a mere love of cruelty’ and that Mr Christie had quite rightly punished him for it. Under these circumstances he asked the bench to dismiss the case which at the most was merely an indiscretion by Mr Christie. 

The next few witnesses were all boys from the grammar school. The first was Wilfred Hurst who had asked Harris not to kill the bird, and he claimed that the bird did not die immediately. He also confirmed that during the caning, Mr Christie did not hit Harris above six times. During cross examination he admitted that Mr Christie had caned him on two or three occasions, but that he ‘did not hit him very hard’. Another boy Earnest Hague also told the court that he had never had cause to complain of any unkindness from Mr Christie. He had simply told Harris at the time, that it had been a pity to kill the bird. Other boys gave similar statements. After hearing all the evidence the magistrate Mr H Otter stated that: “We think that Mr Christie in this case, acted under the impression that the boy Harris had been guilty of a very cruel act. Undoubtedly the boy had disobeyed the command of his master. Our respect for the medical evidence has been weakened from the fact that Dr Shearman disapproved of corporal punishment. We think there is not enough evidence to justify us in convicting a gentleman in the responsible position of Mr Christie. We therefore dismiss the case.”