Thе state, by her attorney prosecuting, filed a charge, verified by affidavit, against Gardner, for аssault and battery. The charge was made at the January term of the Decatur Common Pleas. It appears that Gardner was a school-teacher, and the party assaulted, his pupil. While they stood in such relations to each other, a controversy arose between them about the spelling of the word “ commerce.” The pupil, Stuart, having missed in spelling the word, and refused to try again, Gardner became angry and commenced beating him. He wore out two whips on him, and in the progress of the chastisement administered to Stuart a blow or two with his fist on the head, and a couple of kicks in the face. Two witnesses for the defence, whо were also pupils and present, testified negatively that they did not see the blows nor the kicks.
The cause was submitted to a jury, verdict guilty, fine 2 dollars, and judgment accordingly.
In the progress of the cause several objections were taken, which are urged hеre for a reversal. Among the most material are, 1. That trie Christian name of the defendant is not set out in the charge, but only initials. He is described as “ one A. G. Gardner, late of said county.” For this causе the defendant moved to quash the complaint. The criminal code established by the revisiоn of
The motion to quash was met by a counter motion to file an information in which the Christian name of Gardner was alleged to be unknown. The Court overruled the former and sustained thе latter. This was erroneous. In January, 1853, the R. S. of 1852 were not in force, and informations such as that filed werе not authorized by law, but only a sworn charge or complaint. Lindville v. The State, 3 Ind. R. 580.
The second error complained of is, that the Court refused to hear more than two witnesses to the same point on thе part of the defence. As a rule of decision this position could not be supportеd. The leaning of the courts should be to allfow as wide a latitude to the de
The instructions given to the jury are objected to. In a recent case we had occasiоn to examine the law relative to the right of teachers to chastise their pupils. Cooper v. McJunkin, ante, p. 290.
We adhere to the doctrine there laid down. Such outrages on the child, even though he be truant and perhaps stubborn, are more than parental feeling can bear. To prevent retaliation and breaches of the peace, it becomes a matter of publiс policy to punish the offender. If the law in such cases is properly administered, those whоse feelings are outraged will have no apology for taking redress into their own hands. They will рeaceably abide the adjudication of the courts. If, on the contrary, the law is loоsely and indulgently administered, the tendency is to stimulate the aggrieved to seek personal redress. As a matter of public policy, courts and juries should therefore hold a strong and stern hand over teachers who abuse their sacred and responsible position.
The judgment is reversed with costs.. Cause remanded, &c.