The Hawaiian gazette., 1890-03-18

II
Second Judicial Circuit Court.
In an action of tort, the defendant, y
school teacher. having cut the hair
Of a pupil, the plaintiffs daughter,
without consent. Held that an
officer OF the Board Of Health had
no authority 10 direct the school
teacher 10 do ii, and that the school
teacher being without authority 70
cut the hair as sanitary measure,
could not, either, do il as punish
ment.
Opinion Of the Court, By AeCGlIy, j.
This was an action of tort brought
in the Police Court of Wailuku,
Maui, appealed TO the Circuit Judge
in Chambers, from whom eXcep-
tionS were taken 10 the Circuit
Court of the Second Judicial Cir
cult, which overruled, pro f0TRIG,
the exceptions taken TO the rulings
Of the Circuit Judge in Chambers,
which bill of exceptions and the
records and papers on file are the
matter before this Court.
We quote what is necessary,
viz:
The parties admit that on the
10th day of October A. d. 1889,
hela, being minor daughter of
kahula the plaintiff in this suit and
attending as a scholar in the Wal
hee Government School of which
II. Z Austin the defendant in this
suit is the Principal Teacher, there
and then the said defendant did
cut the hair of the minor kela
against her wishes and against the
wishes of the said plaintiff. Plain
tiff has demanded $4,000 damages
of said defendant. Said defendant
refuses TO pay the same and pleads
justification in law.
sc. Herbert sworn. / am the
Government physician for the Dis
trict of Wailuku. Il is part of my
duties 10 examine the school child
rem in the district. Know Kela, l
did not order her hair cut. The
vermin could have been removed
by other means"
CrOSs Examined. About nine
days before the 10th of October l
examined the Waihee School child
rem and examined kela, cannot
say what the condition of her head
was. My general instructions to
II. Z. Austin were, IS l saw that
some of the children had vermin
and sores on their heads that the
hair should be properly cleaned,
and that l would provide some
salye for the purpose; but if they
should neglect TO do so, after due
notice had been given to them and
their parents then their hair should
be removed. 1 gave the order both
SIS s physician and as an officer of
the Board of Health from sani-
tary point Of view, for the sake of
the health of the children infected
and for the cleanliness of the
school From my present examina-
ton of kela's head l see no neces-
sity of having had to cut her hair
at the time.
Plaintiff Rests.
oh. Z Austin, sworn. As near
as 1 can remember, DR.. Herbert's
instructions TO me after his find
ing out that some of the schO-
lars were infested were that he
would provide the salve and soap
and that l must tell their parents
that if they did not clean the heads
of their children then l should cut
of their hair. My attention was
called 10 the condition of the head
Of this child Sarah or Eela by my
assistant teacher, in whose room
she is and on my looking l saw
that she was so infested, then l
took Sarah and gave her in charge
of my school officer and told him
to take her TO her mother TO clean
her head The next day Sarah
returned to school still dirty 1
asked her if her mother had clean
ed her head, she answered no, % l
set her aside with others to have
their hair cut that day.
The assistant teacher testified to
the same facts.
The Circuit Judge held that the
defendant was not justified by law
in his proceeding and confirmed
the judgment of the Police Court
awarding the plaintiff one dollar
damages
By THE COURT.
The justification claimed for the
assault l. . that the Board of Edu-
cation or the Board Of Health have
the right TO make such rules with
regard To the cleanliness Of scholars
as they msy deem necessary, and