Litchfield enquirer., 1869-10-07
Co1poreal, Punishnnent in Common { : .s.s', ,:Ss'''-' 4,(aa Schools.

-JcS s.sssg1 ty5en SSA10oAss
 . iTheright of school teacher to infic 'deolporeal punishment upon scholar ha 1, always been admitted in this state, yet sdthere has been some uncertainty as to- the lalsw onithe subject. The case of Wm. H F Taylor vs. N. B. Strong, tried in the su, ts perior Court last week, was an action O ftaasault and battery brought by scholar against the teacher, to recover damages fol Nhat was claimed to be an immoderate lippnishment.t Thinking it would be of in oterest to our readers we have obtained the
 summary of Judge Sanford's charge to thu .jury. from the minutes of one of the coun- eseL After stating the evidence the judg, n..ga .sISoxa 1e1ss7di>'r-, 3-fi@t s+ s-t.s
 $ astassd e1ei,ia sas s'sa ah t9
 .no %There are assaults which are justifiable
 as where an assault is made by an officer ir the discharge of his duty, or where it is ..dane in ,tha- -6ateAAA--aS-.s-sipupu py
 .teaphera 1nshis case the defence is tha
 what vas done by the defendant was ns
 more than 3 reasonable punishment for tn.
 -GL "
 nd Hondnct of the plaintiff and was neces.
 aaryifor the preservation of his authority
 as teacher and the good of the school. The
 tsAcher of a school has q right to insist on
 the prescription of order and obedience
 toths rules of'the school, and it is his duty ,to repfeas everything of a pernicious infla-
 encesand which tends to the subversion of
 discipline or to stir up insubordinatiou
 atnoSg the pupils. tsh} ste3 ssa %~
 4."The Plaintiff was pupil, as such he was
 bound to regard the rnles of the school.
 Hshad no right to do any thing to bring
 the authority of the teacher into contempt,
 aud 1t was his duty at all times to obey the rules of the teacher and all his special com mands provided they were reasonable.
 "A school master in the school house, dur. ing the hours of school. is, SO to speak, the sovereign and the pupils are his subjects. The master has all the power which is req sonable and necessary for the preservation oforders decency, dscorum and good gov ernnantIin the school. 3eu
 ';.The real question is whether the punish ment Nas excessive. for it is the excess on. lyfar which the defendant is liable if lia. bls tt ail.o fn the connection I will read to you an extract from decision rendered in aA neighboring state, as it expresses the law'on the subject in language better than my own IA school master has right to infiiot reasonable corporeal punishment. He must exercise reasonable judgment and discretion insdstermining when to punish, and to what extsnto In determining upon whatissa reasonable punishment various considsrations must bs regarded. the na. turs ici the oisenpss the apparent motive and disposition of the offender, the infin. snoe ot his example and conduct upon osh. CTS, and 4hs lsge,. . sex. size and strength of the pupil to be punished. s Among, ,s rsa. sonahlep persons much difference prevails as to the circumstances which will justify the M MihaietioR ol punish and fhe extent to which # may properly be administered. ! On account of this difference of opinion. and the' isfacuity which exists in determin, ing Ewhat lis reasonable punishment. and the advantage which the master has by bel ing on shsspot to know all the circum. stances-the manner, look, tone. gestures and language of the offender (which are not always easily described). and thus to form a correct opinion as to the necessity | and extent of the punishment, considers. ble allowance should be made to the teech- CT by way of protecting him in the exer- cise of bis discretion. Especially should he have this Indulgence when hs appears b have acted from good motives and not ron apger or malice Hence the teacher s nottoIbe eldIisble On the ground of 'xcess of punishment unless the punish. nent is o'tqrly excessive and would be held |
 .sluaass fioseass sss4a.-a ssF.
 .eofE1o .e1Utsi4@ .gs4s ss ts Gass saa