So far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, while there is a dearth of judicial decisions as to the exact limits of the teacher's jurisdiction, yet the spirit of the decisions is that the authority of the schoolmaster extends over the person of the pupil from the time the pupil arrives on the school premises until it leaves, and over the school premises both in and out of school hours. And also that for conduct out of school hours and off the school premises, in violation of a rule of the school, and which conduct has a direct and immediate tendency to injure the school or its discipline, the authority attaches and the pupil may be punished therefor.' But whatever punishment is to be administered must be inflicted on the school premises.

Although a teacher has in general no right to chastise a pupil for misconduct committed out of school after the dismissal of school for the day, and the return of the pupil to his home, yet he may, on the pupil's return to school, punish him for any misbehavior, though committed out of school, which has a direct and immediate tendency to injure the school or subvert the teacher's authority. This was held in a case in which the pupil, a boy eleven years old, an hour and a half after the school had closed for the day, and when he was at his home, and engaged in

1 Lander v. Seaver, 32 Vt., 114; IIurd on Habeas Corpus, p. 50.

his father's service, used saucy and disrespectful language to the teacher in the presence of some of his fellow-pupils. For this the teacher whipped the boy next morning on his return to school.

The court, sitting in full bench, and upon argument and careful consideration, sustained the action of the teacher, and in doing so used the following language: "But where the offence has a direct tendency to injure the school and bring the master's authority into contempt, as in this case, when done. in the presence of other scholars and of the master, and with the design to insult him, we think he has a right to punish the scholar if he comes to school again."

There was no prescribed rule in that respect, and the court passed directly upon the teacher's right to maintain respect for his authority, even as against acts done out of school which are directed against his authority.1

If a person who has attained majority voluntarily attends school, creating the relation of teacher and pupil, he thereby waives any privilege of age, and subjects himself to like discipline with those who are within the school age. Such pupil may be punished

1 Lander v. Seaver, 32 Vt, 114; Burdick v. Babcock, 31 Jowa, 562. But as to the limit, see Murphy v. Board of Directors, etc., 30 Iowa, 429; Dritt v. Snodgrass, 66 Mo., 286.

for refractory conduct, provided the punishment be reasonable under the circumstances.1

It has been held in Wisconsin that a teacher was not authorized to inflict corporal punishment upon a child for the purpose of compelling it to pursue a study which it was forbidden by its father to pursue.

In this case, however, the teacher assumed the right to control the child's studies, and there was no rule of the school board requiring the pupil to pursue the study which his father had forbidden.' It is expressly stated in the opinion, that this decision is not intended to interfere with the duties of the school board in making and enforcing proper and reasonable rules.

If the rules of a school prescribe certain studies, and require attendance at particular hours, and the parents may not excuse therefrom, yet the teacher should not in such case resort to whipping the pupil for failure to pursue the studies or attend at the hours fixed by the rules. The remedy in such case is expulsion from the school."

In New Jersey corporal punishment is forbidden by statute.

1 The State v. Mizner, 45 Iowa, 248; Stevens v. Fassett, 27 Me., 266, 287.

2 Morrow v. Wood, 35 Wis., 59.

The State of Iowa v. Mizner, 50 Iowa, 145.

4 Rev. Statutes of New Jersey. p. 1087, sec. 98.

In England it has been held, that where a schoolmaster wrote to a parent and obtained the parent's consent to beat the pupil severely to subdue his alleged obstinacy, and the teacher beat the boy for two hours and a half secretly in the night, and with a thick stick, until the pupil died from the effects of the beating, such teacher was guilty of manslaughter only, no malice having been proved.'

R. v. Hopley, 2 F. & F., 203.

TABLE OF CASES CITED.

A

Etna, The, 68.

Anderson v. The State, 119, 120, 121, 122, 128.

Angell v. McClellan, 68.

Apgar v. Trustees, 83.

Appeal of Barnes, 60.

Appointment of Viewers, 32.

Armand v. Dumas, 24, 30.

Armstrong v. Treasurer of Athens Co., 24.

Athearn v. The Independent School District, etc., 74.
Attorney-General v. Ely, 39.

Augustin v. Eggleston, 36.

Bellmeyer v. Independent District of Marshalltown, 52, 53

Bigelow v. Randolph, 54.

Blanchard v. School District, 71.

Boardman v. Hayne et al., 50, 53.

Board of Trustees v. Misenheimer, 56.