Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

159 Mass. 372

Commonwealth v. Roberts

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1893-06-21

<p>Public Schools — Instruction of Children — Statute — Burden of Proof.</p> <p>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 is incumbent on him, in order to escape the penalty imposed by St. 1890, c. 384, 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; and on a complaint alleging a violation of the provisions of the statute, the defendant may show that for a like period of time with the period alleged in the complaint, during the time alleged in the complaint, the child had been instructed in a private day school not approved by the school committee in the branches of learning required by law to be taught in the public schools.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1893-06-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 1997

1 district · 15 state decisions — followed in 10 states

5018931900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Allen, J.

¶1The 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 *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.

¶2The 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*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.

¶3The evidence which was excluded should have been admitted.

¶4 Verdict set aside.

/159/mass/372 · .json · Public domain