Davis v. City of Boston

• Citation: 133 Mass. 103
• Parties: Joseph F. Davis v. City of Boston
• Decision Date: 26 June 1882
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

133 Mass. 103

Joseph F. Davis v. City of Boston

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

June 26, 1882

Argued March 2, 1881

Suffolk. Tort under Gen. Sts. c. 41, § 11, brought in the name of the plaintiff by his next friend to recover damages for the unlawful exclusion of the plaintiff from the Harvard Grammar School, in the Charlestown District of Boston, by the principal of the school.

At the trial in the Superior Court, before Allen, J., the plaintiff's evidence tended to prove that the plaintiff was fourteen years of age, a legal resident of said district and that he had attended said school for several years previously to the alleged exclusion; that the teacher, who had charge of the class in which the plaintiff was, had occasion to administer corporal punishment to him for disobedience and impertinence in school; that the plaintiff refused to submit to punishment, and was told by his teacher to go to the principal of the school in another room in the same building; that the plaintiff, instead of going to the principal, went home, and after several days returned and offered to the teacher to submit to punishment; that the teacher commenced to punish the plaintiff, but before the punishment was completed the plaintiff refused to submit to further punishment, and was told by the teacher to go to the principal, and again went home; that this was repeated several times, the plaintiff each time, when ordered to report himself to the principal, absenting himself for several days, and then returning and offering to submit to punishment, and, after the punishment was partly inflicted refusing to submit to further punishment; that on the last occasion the teacher ordered him to go home, and told him that he could not return to his class until he had submitted to punishment; that afterwards, on the same day, the plaintiff, with his father, went to the school, and had an interview with the principal, Mr. Eaton. The plaintiff testified, that his father had some conversation with Mr Eaton alone; that Mr. Eaton then called the plaintiff in, and asked him if he was ready to receive his punishment; that the plaintiff said he was; that Mr. Eaton then asked him if he was willing to receive his punishment, and the plaintiff answered that he could not say that he was willing, but that he would receive his punishment; that Mr. Eaton told him that he could not punish him unless he said that he was willing; that the plaintiff said he could not say he was willing, as he did not think he had done anything to be punished for, but that Mr. Eaton might punish him; that Mr. Eaton said he could not punish him unless he said he was willing, and told him to go home. The father of the plaintiff testified that he told Mr. Eaton to punish the plaintiff as he would one of his own children; that the plaintiff told Mr. Eaton that he would take his punishment; that Mr. Eaton asked him if he was willing to be punished, and the plaintiff answered that he could not say that he was willing; that Mr. Eaton said that the school committee would not allow him to punish the plaintiff unless he said that he was willing to be punished; that Mr. Eaton told the plaintiff to go home, and that he would not have him in school unless he said he was willing to be punished. The plaintiff's testimony also tended to prove that the punishment inflicted on him by the teacher, when he refused to submit to further punishment by her, was excessive. On all the above matters there was conflicting evidence introduced by the defendant.

The father of the plaintiff further testified, for the plaintiff that, in answer to a written request, he received from Mr. Eaton a...