Holmes v. State

• Decision Date: 30 June 1905
• Citation: Holmes v. State, 39 So. 569 (Ala. 1905)
• Parties: HOLMES v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

39 So. 569

HOLMES v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 30, 1905

Appeal from Clay County Court; W. J. Pearce, Judge.

"Not officially reported."

Delmeda Holmes was convicted of an assault and battery, and he appeals.Affirmed.

D. H Riddle, for appellant.

Massey Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.

DENSON J.

The defendant, a schoolmaster, was tried in the county court of Clay county for an assault and battery on Maggie Stansell, a girl 16 years old, who at the time was a pupil in the school that was being kept by the defendant.The case was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury.The court on the evidence rendered judgment finding the defendant guilty and assessed a fine of $10.From the judgment of conviction the defendant appeals.

The law applicable to the case has been plainly and elaborately declared in the case of Boyd v. State,88 Ala. 1697 So. 268, 16 Am. St. Rep. 31, and it is wholly unnecessary to go into an extended discussion of it here.In that case it was held "that one standing in loco parentis, exercising the parent's delegated authority, may administer reasonable chastisement to a child or pupil to the same extent as the parent himself; and to fasten upon him the guilt of criminality he must not only inflict on the child immoderate chastisement, but he must do so malo animo, with legal malice or wicked motives, or else he must inflict on him some permanent injury.If there be no permanent injury inflicted, or no legal malice can be inferred, no conviction should follow."It was further stated, in the case cited supra, that in determining the question of the reasonableness of the correction administered, or the existence of malice the jury may consider the nature of the instrument used and all the attendant circumstances.

The act establishing the county court for the county of Clay approved December 13, 1898, provides that in the trial of any cause at law without a jury in said court either party may present for review the conclusions and judgment of the court on the evidence, and the Supreme Court shall review the same without any presumption in favor of the court below on the evidence.Following the ruling made in the case of Woodrow v. Hawving,105 Ala. 240, 16 So. 720, where a similar statute was construed, we hold that it applies to cases where this court has before it all the legal evidence and data which was before the trial court, and that,...