Barnard v. Inhabitants of Shelburne

• Decision Date: 22 October 1913
• Citation: Barnard v. Inhabitants of Shelburne, 216 Mass. 19, 102 N.E. 1095 (Mass. 1913)
• Parties: BARNARD v. INHABITANTS OF SHELBURNE.
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

216 Mass. 19

102 N.E. 1095

BARNARD v. INHABITANTS OF SHELBURNE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Franklin.

October 22, 1913

COUNSEL

Wm A. Davenport and Harry A. Weymoth, both of Greenfield, for plaintiff.

Frank J. Lawler, of Greenfield, for defendant.

OPINION

RUGG C.J.

This is an action of tort to recover damages (as alleged in his declaration) for wrongful exclusion of the plaintiff from the 'public high school' of Shelburne. The court ruled that there was no evidence that the plaintiff might not have gone to a school of the ninth grade. This ruling appears to have been right and became the law of the case for the purposes of that trial.

The evidence tended to show that the plaintiff entered the high school in its freshman class in the autumn of 1910, and that from the first he fell below the required standard of excellence in one or more branches of instruction, information as to which was sent to his father once at least, and that in December written notice was given to his father that he could not longer continue in the high school, accompanied with a suggestion that the boy go to a Miss Johnstone, who was teacher of a ninth grade school in the same village, for the rest of the year, and with an expression of hope that he then would be able with this additional preparation to do the high school work. It was testified by the principal of the high school that the conduct of the boy had nothing to do with the letters written about his ability to keep up with his class. There is nothing in the record to control this evidence. It is plain from the reports of teachers as to his standing that he failed to attain a standard of 60 per cent. or was deficient in three braches, and the plaintiff himself testified that he thought this was so.

A rule adopted by the school committee was put in evidence to the effect that 'pupils standing below 60 per cent. in two or more subjects shall be demoted one grade, and when such deficiency occurs in the freshman class the delinquent shall be dropped from the roll of the school.' Apparently this merely was putting in more permanent form a standard previously adopted by the faculty of the school. It properly might apply to pending cases. The only ground of exclusion which finds any support in the reported evidence is deficiency in studies. After the December letter was sent the plaintiff remained away from any school until the following March, when he presented himself at the high school and was refused admission by the principal until he had seen the chairman of the school committee. He had an interview with the chairman, as to which the plaintiff testified 'He wanted to know if I had prepared myself further, and I told him I had not, and he told me I could not enter the school until I had further prepared myself.' On April 10th the father of the plaintiff applied in writing to the school committee for a statement in writing of the reasons for the exclusion. According to the testimony of the father a reply to this application was made, but it is not in the record.

Two questions were submitted to the jury which, with their answers, were as follows:

(1) 'Was the plaintiff excluded from the public schools of the town of Shelburne?' The jury answered: 'He was.'

(2) 'If the jury answer that he was excluded from the public schools, what was the grounds of such exclusion?' The jury answered: 'His standing in the school not being high enough; such facts, however, in the minds of the jury not sustained by the evidence.'

It must be understood that 'public schools' as used in these questions and answers refer to the high school and not to the system of schools of the town. This follows from the ruling given by the judge to the effect that there was no evidence that the plaintiff could not have gone to another school. The trial appears to have followed the strict issue made by the pleadings, namely, whether the plaintiff was excluded illegally from the high school. The first part of answer of the jury as to the cause of his exclusion follows the evidence. There is nothing in the evidence as reported to give color to a contention that he was excluded for any other reason than that his standing was not high enough.

The right of every child to attend the public schools is subject to such reasonable regulations as to qualifications of pupils to be admitted and retained in the respective schools as the school committee shall prescribe. R. L. c. 44, § 3. The school committee have general charge and superintendence over all public schools. R. L. c. 42, § 27. As was said by Knowlton, C.J., in Hammond v. Hyde Park, 195 Mass 29, 30, 80 N.E. 650: 'This power is broad and ample. For the promotion of the best interests of pupils and of all the people, it necessarily has been construed broadly by the...