Commonwealth v. Roberts

34 N.E. 402, 159 Mass. 372, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 157
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJune 21, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 34 N.E. 402 (Commonwealth v. Roberts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Commonwealth v. Roberts, 34 N.E. 402, 159 Mass. 372, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 157 (Mass. 1893).

Opinion

Allen, J.

The penalty imposed by St. 1890, c. 384, is not incurred “if such child has attended for a like period of.time a private day school approved by the school committee of such city [374]*374or town, or if such child has been otherwise instructed for a like period of time in the branches of learning required by law to be taught in the public schools, or has already acquired the branches of learning required by law to be taught in the public schools.” The words, “if such child has been otherwise instructed for a like period of time in the branches of learning required by law to be taught in the public schools,” were first enacted in St. 1889, c. 464, by way of substitution for the words, “ if such child has been otherwise furnished for a like period of time with the means of education,” which words were in the earlier statutes. Pub. Sts. c. 47, § 1. St. 1873, c. 279, § 1. Gen. Sts. c. 41, § 1.

The great object of these provisions of the statutes has been that all the children shall be educated, not that they shall be educated in any particular way. To this end public schools are established, so that all children may be sent to them unless other sufficient means of education are provided for them. If a child has in any manner already acquired the branches of learning required by law to be taught in the public schools, the law does not compel any further instruction. If he has not acquired them, the law requires that he be instructed in them for the specified time each year. Sending a child to a private day school approved by the school committee is enough to comply with the requirement of the law, without further inquiry. The Pub. Sts. c. 47, § 2, prescribe what private day schools may be so approved. But if the person having a child under his control, instead of sending him to a public school or to a private day school approved by the school committee, prefers to have him instructed otherwise, it will be incumbent on him to show that the child has been instructed for the specified period in the required branches of learning, unless the child has already acquired them. This permits instruction in those branches in schools or academies situated in the same city or town, or elsewhere, or instruction by a private tutor or governess, or by the parents themselves, provided it is given in good faith and is sufficient in extent. If the school committee has not approved of a particular school, or has expressly refused to approve of it, then the person having control of a child, if he sends the child to that school, must take the responsibility of being able to prove that he has been suffi[375]*375ciently and properly instructed there. He has no such responsibility if he sends the child to a private day school approved by the school committee.

The evidence which was excluded should have been admitted.

Verdict set aside.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Brunelle v. Lynn Public Schools
8 Mass. L. Rptr. 7 (Massachusetts Superior Court, 1997)
McDuffy v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Education
615 N.E.2d 516 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1993)
New Life Baptist Church Academy v. Town of East Longmeadow
666 F. Supp. 293 (D. Massachusetts, 1987)
Care & Protection of Charles
504 N.E.2d 592 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1987)
Delconte v. State
329 S.E.2d 636 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1985)
State v. Massa
231 A.2d 252 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1967)
Knott v. Rawlings
96 N.W.2d 900 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1959)
State v. Pilkinton
310 S.W.2d 304 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1958)
Commonwealth v. Renfrew
126 N.E.2d 109 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1955)
People v. Turner
263 P.2d 685 (California Court of Appeal, 1953)
People v. Turner
121 Cal. App. 2d 865 (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, 1953)
People v. Levisen
90 N.E.2d 213 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1950)
State v. Hoyt
146 A. 170 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1929)
State v. O'Dell
118 N.E. 529 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1918)
Butler v. State
194 S.W. 166 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1917)
State v. Peterman
70 N.E. 550 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1904)
City of New York v. Chelsea Jute Mills
43 Misc. 266 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1904)
State v. McCaffrey
69 Vt. 85 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 N.E. 402, 159 Mass. 372, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-roberts-mass-1893.