The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1867-03-27

Charge of Judge Osborn to the
- Jury, I'm the Case OF the State
We. Miss Mary A. Galloway for
Assault and Battery,

-. -
Tho following is SYNOPSIS Of the
charge of Judge VIM. OSBORN, in the
above case, the particulars Of which We
published last week: 'l',t o. *
The Court instructed tho Jury, it was
q good defence to charge of an assault
and battery, that the defendant was en-
gagged in teaching and the assault com
planned Of was punishment inflicted up
on a cholar for violation of the rules of
school, provided the punishment was with
a proper instrument aud not excessive !;
that the law in this respect was SO well
established that nothing short of Lcgisla.
tive action would authorize the Court to
declare different rule. II, therefore, the
Jury in this case should find that the
punishment inflicted by the defendant up
on the pupil was not excessive and dis.
proportiouato to the offence committed by
the pupil, it would be their duty to return
verdict for the defendant. On the part
of the State, 1t was claimed that the pun.
ishment by the teacher was excessive on
account Of the improper instrument, the
quantity Of the punishment, the marks
left upon the body, the age of the pupil,
aud the nature Of his offence. II was for
the Jury to determine whether the pun.
ishment was excessive and it was proper
for them to take into consideration the in.
struments and tho age Of the pupil, his al.
legged offence, aud the quantity Of punish
ment, If the Jury should find the pun
sbment excessive, before they could find
the defendant criminally liable for assault
and battery, II was necessary for III EN-
to take into consideration Othcrprinciples
of law applicable to tho case. 1t would
almost necessarily follow, if the law gives
the right to teacher to inaict corporal
punishment, that tho teacher would not
necessarily bo criminally guilty if there
should be an excess Of punishment. AS
crime proceeds from the heart, IAN inten.
tion wantonly to injure another-it would
seem proper not to hold one guilty who
has simply erred in opinion when consci.
entiously in discharge of his duties. On
the other hand, tho law should not be SC
construed as to invite or give encourage.
inert to wanton or reckless use of cor.
poral punishment in schools, and wo are
therefore required in this case as in all
criminal cases to consider the rule that 0
person intends all those results which
necessarily flow from his acts. As it il
well settled that the law gives the right
j a..
to the exercise Of corporal punishment il
schools. SO IL is equally we'll settled by
authorities, that nero excess Of corpora
punishment does not necessarily render
the teacher criminally liable, and in order
that the principles Of law should be mad,
applicable to the present case, the Jur,
are instructed in case they should fud th,
/ punishment inflicted by the teacher ex
cessive, that the defendant would then b,
liable, if either Of the following should b,
found to be the facts LIST. If the instru
mcnt used was improper. 2ud. If per
manent disability was caused. Sd. If tn
punishment was inflicted in anger, or il
hatred or i'll will. 4th. If the punish
ment was violent and cruel. The Jur
wore to bs their own judges of the fact
and if they should find that the facts war
ranted the conclusion Of any one Of til
IEs-opOsitiOns stated, then the dofendau
was guilty. a4A 1lI
Having stated in what cases the dc
fendant would be held liable, it is nocol
sary to state in what case where excess O
punishment was proven the defendan
would not be liable, And the Jury yiIir ar
instructed 10 case they should findthv
the punishment was inflicted by props
instrument, that no permanent disabilit
was produced, that it was not done in az
ger but in kindness and In the conscier
tiouS discharge Of her duties, that II wa
not violent nor cruel, then the aefendau
was not liable, although an exces Of pnr
ishment was proven. 's aa9s3 Y .,'''
~ N.Y. The Louisville Demdcrati anent