Sheehan v. Sturges

• Decision Date: 24 November 1885
• Citation: 53 Conn. 481,2 A. 841
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: SHEEHAN v. STURGES.

2 A. 841

53 Conn. 481

SHEEHAN

v. STURGES.

SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT.

Filed November 24, 1885.

Appeal from superior court, Fairfield county.

John S. Seymour, for plaintiff.

John H. Perry and Winthrop H. Perry, for defendant.

GRANGER, J. This is a complaint for an assault and battery. The defense is that the plaintiff was at the time a pupil in a school kept by the defendant; that he willfully violated the reasonable rules of the school, and disobeyed the reasonable commands of the defendant as his teacher; and that for this misconduct the defendant, as such teacher, whipped him in a reasonable manner. The sole controversy upon the trial was as to the reasonableness of the punishment inflicted. The court found that "such whipping was not unreasonable or excessive, and was fully justified by the plaintiff's misconduct at that time." The extent and reasonableness of the punishment administered by a teacher to his pupil is purely a question of fact. This is too well settled to make the citation of authorities necessary. The finding of the court therefore settles the question as to this, unless the court acted upon improper evidence.

The plaintiff testified as a witness in his own behalf, and on his cross-examination the defendant, against the objection of the plaintiff's counsel, was allowed to ask him whether, on two former occasions, both of them more than a week before the whipping in question, he had not assaulted the teacher while he was chastising him. And the defendant afterwards in his testimony in his own behalf, was allowed, against the objection of the plaintiff, to state that the plaintiffs conduct in school was habitually bad, and that on two former occasions, one of them about two weeks and the other seven or eight days before the whipping in question, the plaintiff had assaulted him while he was chastising him. The defendant was also allowed, on the plaintiffs cross-examination, against objection, to inquire of him whether he had not, seven or eight days before the whipping in question, put stones in his pocket, and declared that he was going to attack the teacher with them. The plaintiff, in answer to the inquiry, denied that he had done so, and the defendant, against the plaintiffs objection, was allowed to show by a witness that the plaintiff had so done. The defendant did not inform the plaintiff, at the time of the whipping, that he was punishing him for his past and habitual misconduct. We think that the court committed no error in admitting the inquiries and evidence. The right of the school-master to require obedience to reasonable rules and a proper submission to his authority, and to inflict punishment for disobedience, is well settled. It is said in the Encyclopedia of Education, edited by Kiddle and Schem, page 189, that "the school codes of the United States are generally silent in regard to the right of teachers to inflict corporal punishment; but there are numerous judicial decisions in favor of this right. By English and American law a parent may correct his child in a reasonable manner, and the teacher is in loco parentis;" citing 2 Kent, Comm. 203; 1 Bl. Comm. 453; Com. v. Randall, 4 Gray, 36; State v. Pendergrass, 2 Dev. & B. 365; Stevens v. Fassett, 27 Me. 280; Lander v. Seaver, 32 Vt. 123.

As incident to this relationship, it is the right of the teacher, in the absence of rules established by the school board or other proper authority, to make all necessary and proper rules for the good conduct and order of the school; and it is his duty to see that order is maintained and the rules observed. And if any scholar violates the rules, and disobeys the orders of the teacher, it is the duty of the latter to enforce...