Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1874-02-05
Ells " orth Police Court
PETERS, JUDGE.

State v, Carrie d. Foss. Complaint Of
one Gilbert Bragdon. agent Of school dis
trict No. 1, in the town of Hancock,
against the Respd't for a wilful disturb.
ancc of the school kept in that district.
Plea not Guilty.
As this case is certainly novel and In
some respects, important, we give below
q full report.
The evidence showed that the parents of
the Respdt young lady is years old,
live In the town of Lamoine, and in the
school district adjoining said district No.
/. in Hancock-that scholars in the La
moline district heretofore attended school
in district No. !, and paid tuition therefor,
but the voters voted no longer to receive
scholars out of the district. The Respd't
had made il her home for some weeks
prior TO the commencement of the school
in district No. /, at the house of Mr..
Gerrish. resident of the district. and on
the commencement of the school attended
the same as apupil. The agent and others
objected to this. as violation of the vote
| of the district. and claiming that she was
A resident of Lamoine and not OF Hancock,
and as she was not enumerated on the first
of April last as a scholar In district No. /,
she had no rights there. The friends of
the girl contepded that she rightfuly at
tended the school. After much discussion.
| the teacher of the school Mr.. Eben Hodg-
kins, was directed by the agent not TO in
I struct her and to eXpel her from the
with. but the second he declined. alleging
that he had no authority to do 1t. The
girl. although not instructed, still con-
tinued to attend the school,
The excitement increased and the S. S.
Committee, Mr.. o. W. Young. was called
upon to act. He visited the school and
hasng his action on the vote of the district,
and assuming that the girl was not
scholar belonging TO this district notified
her TO leave. The girl at the close OF the
session accordingly left.
The agent however not satisfied with
this. entered the complaint on which this
warrant was issaed, giving his own
version OF the AFFAIR.
Mr.. Hodgkins the teacher. testified that
the girl was a quiet. we'll behaved and
orderly scholar, never violating the rules
OF the school and in no way disturbing it,
| except by her presence in the school room.
which under the excited state of the minds
Of the..district, was in his opinion detriment.
al 10 the interests of the school.
In defence it was proved that the girl in
Nov. last became with the consent Of her
parents a member Of Mr.. Gcrrish's family
that Mr. Gerrish requested her to do so.
and to remain so long as she ehose-and
that she accordingly removed part of her
things and intended TO make 1t her home
at his house.
Respdts council argued, lst. That
scholar moving into district to reside
temporarily or permanently became en-
titled TO attend its schools, without any
referenceto the April enumeration required
by law-that the Statute was designedly
silent as to the legal rights OF scholars SO
far as residence was concerned-that the
only restriction was that they should be
between the ages Of 4 and 81 years, and
that liberal and wise policy should
always allow minors the privilege of
schools wherever such minors might hap
pen to be; I'd, That no wilful disturbance
of the school on the part of the Respdt
had been proved and that this penal
Statute could not apply to a case of this
nature, where the scholar attended under
claim Of right.
On the part Of the council for the Gov
eminent it was contended LIST, That As the
Respd't was not a scholar in the district
nor enumerated on the first Of April as a
scholar, she at this time had no right to
attend the school, even If she were now
residing in the district, aud further, that
her residence was only temporary, and
simply for the purpose of going to this
school, and to evade the effect of the vote
excluding scholars from other districts;
and
I'd, That by her attendance she caused a
| commotion in the district and school, and
thereby disturbed the latter, by which she
was amenable to this section of the
| Statute.
Judge Peters gave quite an extended
opinion.
He said, the evidence satisfied him that
the Respondent was resident of Dist.
No. !, In Hancock, there being nothing to
| contradict the sworn statements OF Mr..
Gerrish and the Respondent, and that he
should not be justified in disbelieving it.
Whether this evidence gave the Respdt
the right to attend the school, he did not
decide. but it seemed to him u just inter-
probation of the law that scholars should
have right to attend school somewhere
that children moving with their parents in
to other districts would thereby lose the
privilege Of attending their old school, and
it would be hard to debar them on this &C.
count from the school privileges of the
district to which they had removed. On
the I'd point, the Court said he had very
| grave doubts as to the applicability of the
penal provisions of the Statutes to cases
like the one at bar. The young lady had
conducted herself in becoming manner.
and only attended the school because she
thought she had a right to do SO. He
therefore adjudged the Respd't Not Guilty.
At the same time the Court further re-
marked that in his opinion the Agent, s. S.
Committee and Teacher, did nothing but
their duty in endeavoring to watch over
and protect the interest Of their schools.
Redman for State.
Drinkwa ter for Respd't.