Marlsbary v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Marlsbary v. State

37 N.E. 558, 10 Ind. App. 21, 1894 Ind. App. LEXIS 104

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 17, 1894

DocketNo. 1,258

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 37 N.E. 558 (Marlsbary v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marlsbary v. State, 37 N.E. 558, 10 Ind. App. 21, 1894 Ind. App. LEXIS 104 (Ind. Ct. App. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Lotz, J.

The appellant was a school teacher in the [22]*22common schools of Tippecanoe county. He inflicted corporal punishment upon one of his pupils for the violation of one of the rules of the school. For this he was prosecuted and convicted on the charge of assault and battery. Pie has appealed to this court, assigning as error the overruling of the motion for a new trial.

Filed May 17, 1894.

The rule promulgated was a reasonable one, and the offending pupil admitted the infraction. Under such circumstances, the appellant had the right to inflict punishment, if done in a reasonable manner and a proper spirit. He could only be liable for an assault and battery in the event that the punishment was either cruel or excessive, and beyond the bounds of moderation, considering all the circumstances of the case. In addition to the general presumption of innocence, he had in his favor the presumption of having done his duty. Vanvactor v. State, 113 Ind. 276.

After a careful consideration of the evidence in this case, we are of opinion that it entirely fails to overcome either of these presumptions, and that it entirely fails to show that the punishment was cruel or excessive.

Judgment reversed, with instructions to sustain the motion for a new trial.

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

Lotz, J.

The appellant was a school teacher in the [22]*22common schools of Tippecanoe county. He inflicted corporal punishment upon one of his pupils for the violation of one of the rules of the school. For this he was prosecuted and convicted on the charge of assault and battery. Pie has appealed to this court, assigning as error the overruling of the motion for a new trial.

Filed May 17, 1894.

The rule promulgated was a reasonable one, and the offending pupil admitted the infraction. Under such circumstances, the appellant had the right to inflict punishment, if done in a reasonable manner and a proper spirit. He could only be liable for an assault and battery in the event that the punishment was either cruel or excessive, and beyond the bounds of moderation, considering all the circumstances of the case. In addition to the general presumption of innocence, he had in his favor the presumption of having done his duty. Vanvactor v. State, 113 Ind. 276.

After a careful consideration of the evidence in this case, we are of opinion that it entirely fails to overcome either of these presumptions, and that it entirely fails to show that the punishment was cruel or excessive.

Judgment reversed, with instructions to sustain the motion for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 N.E. 558, 10 Ind. App. 21, 1894 Ind. App. LEXIS 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marlsbary-v-state-indctapp-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack