Case Name: A. C. Crosby v. School District No. 9 in Readsboro, Appellant
Court: Vermont Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Vermont
Decision Date: 1863-02
Citations: 35 Vt. 623
Docket Number: 
Parties: A. C. Crosby v. School District No. 9 in Readsboro, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Vermont Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 623–631

Head Matter:
A. C. Crosby v. School District No. 9 in Readsboro, Appellant.
School. School Register. Forfeiture.
The certificate of qualification, which teachers of common schools are required to obtain from the town superintendent, need not contain any statement in reference to their good moral character.
A teacher of a common school does not forfeit his wages by reason of his neglect to answer the inquiries to teachers contained in the school register, and to certify to the correctness of his record of the daily attendance of the scholars. Bareett, J., dissenting.
But if, in consequence of such neglect, the school district loses a portion of the public money, the teacher must make good such loss to the district.
Assumpsit. Plea the general issue, and trial by the court, at the December Term, 1861, Kellogg, J., presiding.
On the trial before the county court the parties agreed upon the following facts, viz : The plaintiff’s minor daughter, Alletha J. Crosby, taught school iu said district from the 3rd day of May, 1859, to the 22nd day of July, 1859, at the price of one dollar and fifty cents per week, under a contract made by the plaintiff with the defendant. At the time she commenced such school she had in her possession a certificate signed by the superintendent of common schools for the town of Readsboro, in the following words;
“ This may certify that Miss Alletha J. Crosby has this day been examined in the common English branches of education, and found qualified to teach the same, and is therefore licensed to teach school in the town of Readsboro, for the term of one year. Readsboro, May 2nd, 1859.”
The plaintiff’s daughter was furnished by the clerk of the district with a school register, as required by the statute, before she commenced the school. She kept in the register a record of the daily attendance of her scholars, but she neglected to enter in the register any answer to but one óf the thirty-four statistical interrogatories therein addressed to teachers, or to make any certificate of the correctness of the reco. d of the attendance, tardiness and deportment of the scholars attending her school, •or of the correctness of her answer to any of the statistical interrogatories as required by the register.
In consequence of such neglect the district lost of their public money for that term of school the amount of four dollars and fifty cents.
The plaintiff never received any pay for his daughter’s services, as such teacher.
The plaintiff objected to the reception’of such agreement, or •of any evidence, in respect to the loss of public money by the district through the neglect of the teacher, as irrelevant to the issue, and the court pro forma sustained the objection, to which the defendant excepted.
The defendant objected to the certificate of the town superintendent, but the objection was pro forma overruled by the court, to which the defendant excepted.
Upon these facts the court rendered judgment pro forma for the plaintiff for eighteen dollars, being the amount due to the plaintiff under such contract, and interest thereon since July 22nd, 1859, and costs, to which the defendant excepted.
W. H. Follett, for the defendant.
A. W. Preston and A. B. Gardner, for the plaintiff.

Opinion:
Aldis, J.
I. The 8th section of chap. 20, p. 143 Comp. Stat. requires the town superintendent to obtain full and satisfactory evidence of the good moral character of school-teachers ; and to ascertain by personal examination their qualifications to instruct and govern a school; and to give them certificates of their qualifications. The statute distinguishes between good' moral character and qualifications to teach school. The first the superintendent is to ascertain by inquiry, the second by personal examination, and to this he is to certify. The certificate fully complies with the statute.
II. The Act of 1858, sec. 6, provides that the public money shall be divided among the districts according to the average daily attendance of the scholars, instead of the number of scholars between four and eighteen years of age. Sections 7 and 8 provide for tlie furnishing of a school register in which the •teacher shall " keep a true record of the daily attendance of each scholar, and at the close of his school shall enter in the register •correct answers to all inquiries therein addressed to teachers, and shall return such register to the district clerk previous to the receipt of his wages as teacher." The district clerk is to file the register with the town .clerk with certain returns verified by his oath; and no portion of the public money shall be distributed to .a district whose register is not properly filled out.
In this case the teacher kept a record of the daily attendance of her scholars; but she did not answer the interrogatories addressed to teachers, nor certify as to the correctness of her record of attendance as required. It would seem that her record is imperfect or inacurate in some respects. In consequence of her neglect the district lost $4.50 of public money, which they otherwise would have had. The district claims that for such neglect she forfeits all right to wages by virtue of the «clause in the 8th section, whieh enumerates her duties and closes by saying, " and return such register to the district clerk previous to the receipt of his wages as such teacher." The duties, imposed on teachers by that section of the act are, very important. The reeord of attendance is the basis for the distribution of the public money, and the answers to the statistical inquiries embody facts important for ascertaining the practical working and utility of our school system and for the improvement of our schools.
We think however that it was not the intention of the Legislature to secure the performance of these duties by subjecting the teacher to a forfeiture of wages for non-performance of these duties. The statute is rather directory — pointing out with minuteness the duties to be done and the manner and time of doing them. The thirty-four inquiries require very great minuteness and accuracy in matters of detail connected with the school and the district. If the clause we have above quoted, works a forfeiture of wages, any one omission or neglect in these matters would produce this result. This seems to us a more harsh and severe penalty than the law could have intended to visit upon negligence even in such matters. We think the Legislature intended to rely for the faithful performance of these duties— first, upon clearly specifying to the teacher what was to be done, and secondly, by securing through the presumed fidelity and good intent of the teacher, and through the examinations, visits, vigilance and zeal of the superintendents, prudential committees and visitors, a zealous and diligent attendance to these duties.
It is observed too, that no language is used expressly providing for a forfeiture of wages ; and it seems to us that so serious a penalty likely to be visited upon many young persons throughout the state for slight failures and neglects, would not nave been enacted without plain and express words declaring a forfeiture.
It seems, just and reasonable, however, and one of the instruments for securing the faithful working of the system, that the teacher should be liable to make good to the district the amount of the public money which the neglect of the teacher causes the town to lose.
As the county court allowed the teacher the whole amount of her wages without deducting for the $4,50, we reverse the judgment and render judgment for the plaintiff for the eighteen dol.lars deducting therefrom the $4,50 and interest on it to the December term, 1861, and allowing interest on the balance to this date._