Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1874-06-18
Morrow VS.. Wood Law in Relation
to Parents and Teachers.

by James Wood against Annie Nor
row in our Circuit Court last Septem.
Der, has been published in the HER
AID heretofore 1t will be remem-
bered that in the Circuit Court the
case was won by the plaintiff and an
award of $500 for damages was al
lowed to her. The defendant APP
pealed to tie Supreme Court which
has reversed the judgment of the
Circuit Cours and ordered a new
trial. The following is the opinion
of the Supreme Court which con-
tains much information in relation to
the rights of parents and teachers : .
SUPREME COURT.
Annie Morrow by John Morrow, Guardian
ad HbituD1, Respondent, rs. James Wood, APP
pellant. .nss
1t is claimed by the counsel for the
defendant that the court below
should have granted the motion for
a nonsuit because all the evidence
showed that the criminal prosecu-
ton against the plaintiff for an alleg
ed assault and battery committed by
her upon the infant son of the de-
PENDANT was never tried upon the
merits but was discontinue on her
motion and against the cause OF the
complainant in that action. Lit is in
sisted that before an action for ma
licious prosecution can be maintain
ed it must appear that the criminal
prosecution has been determined in
favor Of the party prosecuted by q
trial and acquitai, or the prosecution
must have been discontinued against
| his consent.
We shall spend no time in the con-
sideration of this point in the case for
the reason that we are fully agreed
upon a question of law involved
which is fundamental and underlies
the cause and is entirely decisive of
every other question arising upon
the record. And as this is a quee-
ton of some practical Importance as
affecting tho duties and powers of
teachers in our public schools we
deem it best to decide it in the pres
ent case The facts upon which this
question of law arises as established
on the trial are in brief these:
About the 18th of November 1872
the plaintiff qualified teacher under
a contract with the district school
board commenced teaching district
school in Grant county. The de-
PENDANT an inhabitant OF the district
sent his son, boy about twelve
years of age to the school The
defendant wished his boy TO study
| photography, reading, writing and
also wished him to give particular
attention to the study of arithemetic
for very satisfactory reasons which
he gave on the trial. In addition to
these studies the plaintiff at once re-
ouired the child to also study geog-'
| raphy and took pains to aid him in
| getting book for that purpose.
The father on being informed of this
told his boy not to study geography,
but to attend to his other studies,
and the teacher was promptly. and
fully advised OF this wish of the par
ent and also knew that the boy had
been forbidden by his parent from
taking that study at that time. But
| claiming and insisting that she had
the right to direct and control the
boy in respect to his studies even as
/ 4. 10, 70 nrAnvo aha
manded him to take bis geography
| and get his lesson And when the
boy refused to obey her and did do
as he was directed by his father she
resorted to foroo to compel obedience.
| All this occurred at the frst week of
school The defendant instituted q
criminal action before justice for
| this assault and battery upon his son,
which is the malicious prosecution
complained of. If the teacher had
no right or authority to chastise the
boy upon these facts for obeying his
Father this action must fail And.
| whether she bad or not the power to
| correct him is the question In the
| case. for it is not pretended that the
bov was otherwise 9isobedient or
was guilty of any misconduct, or
violated any rule or regulation adopt
| ed for the goyernment of the school.
| The circuit court in considering the
relative rights and duties of parent
and teacher among other things told
the jury that where parent sent his
| child to district school he surren-
dered to the teacher such authority
over his child as is necessary to the.
proper government ofthe school the
classification and instruction of the
pupils including what studies each
scholar shall pursue these studies
being such as are required by law or
are allowed to be taught in public
schools. And the court added in
this connection that prudent teach
er will always pay proper respect to
the wishes of tho parent in regard to
what studies the Child should take
but where the difference of view was
irreconcilable on the subject, the.
views of the parent in that particular
must yield to those of the teacher,
and that the parent by the very act
of sending his child to school implied
ly undertakes to submit all questions
in regard to study to the judgement
of the teacher. In our opinion
there is grest and fatal error in
this part of the charge particularly
when applied to the facts in this case,
in asserting or assuming the law to
be- that upon an irreconciable differ
ence of views between the parent
and teacher as to what studies the
child shall pursue the authority of
the teacher is paramount and con-
tracing and that she had the right
to enforce obedience to her COM
mands by corporal punishment. We
do not think she had any such right
or authority and we can see no ne