Pages

Friday, May 12, 2023

Prof. Scott's Flogging of 12-Year-Old Crossed Line, Found Guilty of Assault, May 12, 1923

Scott Convicted Takes Appeal to Superior Court. . . Jury returns verdict of guilty and court imposes fine of $25. . . Atmosphere Was Unfair to Defense

Before a packed courtroom Stoneville held the center of the stage in Spray yesterday afternoon when Prof. R.M. Scott, the first man to put the Stoneville school on the accredited list, faced charges of assault on one of the school’s pupils, 12-year-old Millard Rudenhizer, who testified that he was black and blue from the flogging he received on Friday, April 27th, and that two places on his leg were bleeding.

Justice of Peace J.J. Hodges and a jury of six men heard the case. The jury, Saunders King, L.W. Martin, L.J. Shelton, H.F. Hutchens, C.J. Chandler and W.J. Baughn.

Attorneys: A.D. Ivie for the prosecution. For the defendant former Judge Brock of Winston-Salem, P.W. Glidewell of Reidsville, J. Leland Stanford of Stoneville and Judge A.W. Dunn of Leaksville.

Long before the case was called, the courtroom was packed, largely by Stoneville people. And here happened something that indicated the results. When Mr. Ivie entered the court6room with his arms full of law books, he was greeted with as much applause as a candidate for Congress usually receives at a political rally. Several times during the trial the applause was repeated, notwithstanding warnings to desist. Even Rev. T.J. Glenn joined by saying “amen” several times when Mr. Ivie was addressing the jury. This brought from Judge Brock the remark that with all his years in court he had never heard or seen anything like it, meaning the applause and “amen’s.”

Just what effect this may have had on the jury is hard to say, but it was as dense as the fogs on the Bay of Funday (Fundy?).

The state called Millard Rodenhizer to the stand as the first witness. Millard is a smart boy and made a good witness although on cross examination he admitted having used language which if used here would make the Gazette unfit for admission into any respectable home.

The boy’s testimony showed that the whipping took place about 10 minutes to 11 o’clock on April 27th. That two switches were used at the time, that some six or eight of them were used, that they were all wore out except the last two. That his body was black and blue and two places on his leg was bleeding, that he went home at noon and told his mother and showed her the marks. He was asked if he still had marks, and answered “yes” and exhibited his leg to the jury on which it is said there were still some marks.

Under cross examination by Mr. Glidewell the boy admitted using bad language toward another boy that he had been before Mr. Scott several times for violation of school rules, that he struth a teacher with a snow ball, that Scott had warned him to desist, etc., but he did not5 in his testimony show that Mr. Scott had any malice toward him, at one time he had taken two draws of a pipe bud did not smoke cigarettes.

The mother of the boy testified supporting the son’s statements, as did Mr. R.T. Stone, Rev. T.J. Glen, both of whom saw the boy after the whipping and told as to his condition. They however, said nothing about any serious or permanent injury as a result of the whipping.

The boy’s teacher, Miss Tuttle, was called on the stand and stated that Millard was a mischievous and restless boy but she couldn’t say he was a bad boy. Under cross examination, Mr. Glidewell asked for what would she term a bad boy? That if a boy used ____if he would be a bad boy?

Miss Tuttle answered, most any boy 12 years old would do that.

“Stand aside, Mam” Glidwell swiftly requested, as if matters had gotten to (rest of line obscured).

When the state rested its case, Mr. Glidewell at once announced the defense rested.

The arguments to the jury began with Mr. Glidewell, followed by Mr. Ivie, Judge Brock, following him.

The defense contended that under the state law a teacher had the right to punish by whipping, that the teacher was judge of the character and amount of punishment inflicted. That the teacher was within the law so long as it was not done through malice, or serious or permanent injury shown. That there was no suggestion of this in evidence, Supreme Court decisions were cited in support of their contentions.

Mr. Ivey for the state contended that the whipping was excessive, brutal, etc. He talked about the flogging in the convict camps intensified the sentiment of the courtroom, which Judge Brock saw fit to denounce.

The jury had retired but 15 or 20 minutes when they agreed upon a verdict. The found Mr. Scott guilty as charged assault.

Judge Hodges imposed a fine of $25 and costs. Judge Dunn gave notice of appeal to the Superior Court and the court fixed bond in the sum of $200 signed by a number of Stoneville men.

From the front page of the Tri-City Gazette, Leaksville, N.C., May 12, 1923

No comments:

Post a Comment