, 1876-09-24

such system would even en1eavor to compel gen
orally what sknown as liberal education. Nor
docs our present School law contemplate the pow
Of the Directors to enforce the higher branches
under tho penalty OF q forfeiture OF the right of
the child to avail OF instruction in the enumerated
branches.
Parents aud guardians are under the RESPONSE
bility of preparing children nt1usted to their care
and nurture, Of preparing them for the discharge
countries, and with few exceptions in despotic
Governments, have deemed it wise to leave the
education and nurture Of the children OF the State
and has ever BEEN 1a1 the Spirit e Tree nsttn
tons. The State has provided the means, and
brought them within the reach Of ALL to acquire the
benefit Of common school education, but leaves
it to the parents and guardians to determine the
extent to which they will render it available to the
children under their chorge.
We arc. therefore, clearly Of the opinion that the
with the power 10 compel the teaching OF other and
higher branches than those enumerated to those
willing to receive instructions therein but has left
whether ether tie children Under their charge
ahan study such branches. AS to the char
acter Of the higher branches that may be re-
CURED to be taught, there il no necessity for now
determining. But from what has been said it fol-
lows t''at the Directors had power to expcl ap-
pelee from the school and its privileges and bene-
tits, because she, under the direction Of her pa
one Of the branches enumerated in the statute and
is one the parents had the option to have taught
her, the directors had provided that it should be
ta light in the school; and the Directors, having
euch power they could not lawfully expel appellee
from the b:ncts and privileges Of the school for
refusal to comply with this requirement. and when
they did so with force it constituted trespass.
What they did by the teacher they did by them
selves, according to familiar maxim OF the law.
Nor could the teucher justify under the authority
OF the Directors, as they could not under the law
authorize him to perform illegal this was,
and having committed the trespass they liable
to respond in damages
1t lis urged US u ground OF reversal, that the
damages arc excessive, as no personal injury was
inflicted on appellee AL OF the circumstances con-
aidcrcd4 we regard them as quite moderate. There
ia nothing to show that the department Of appellee
was ever anything but strictly proper. She firmly
and resolntely contended for her rights but, fur
a. the record dscloscs, not in unsecmly or inde
corous manner. She was subjected to great in
dignity In the presence OF her associates and the
scholars in the school.
Appellants were fully informed that her parents
Internationally objected and forbid her engaging
in the required study. Others in the class falling
equally within the rule were not required to
enter upon the study OF this branch from
which it might be inferred that other
motives than simply a desire to enforce the
rule may hare entered into and formed ut least
part of the reasons for rigid an application OF
the requirement.; aud above all she was deprived
the common school. after her expulsion, for aught
that appears, for the remainder Of the time the
law gave her the right, which may not have been
Df trihing importance. We are fully impressed
with the fact that the Jury were not actuatel by
prejudice OF passion in their fnding but fairly
fully warranted By the evidence in assessing the
damages as they did, and the judgment Of the
Court below must be affirmed
Judgment affirmed.