I am not quite out of the world though I do happen to live just south of the line that divides Saginaw and Shiawassee counties. No I think myself almost as much a citizen of Chesaning as though I lived within it's bounderies, for I do all my business with your honest and fair-dealing merchants, not caring to go ten or twelve miles from home for the sake of being swindled by strangers.
The Disciples of this section have in process of construction, and nearly completed, a neat chapel, thirty by forty-eight feet. It stands about half a mile east of the State road, on what is called the south ridge. The site was donated by Mr. Charles Haughton. Last Tuesday evening a grand oyster supper was given at Mr. Haughton's palatial residence, the proceeds to be used toward the completion of the chapel. Some seventy or eighty persons were present and "All went merry as a marriage bell."
Saturday last I was called to Corunna on business, and so chanced to be present at the trial of your fellow townsman, Mr. Charles A. Bailey, for inflicting what was claimed to be unreasonable punishment upon a pupil in his school. As the opinion of Prosecuting Attorney Kilpatrick, and the decision of Justice Gale may be interesting to teachers, I give this briefly. The people first called to the stand the boy who had been punished and showed certain abrasions of the skin on his face and hands, made by the whip. The testimony of the boy was to the effect that the teacher punished him without cause, and that he in conformity to the orders of his parents, attempted resistance. The testimony of other pupils of the school showed that the boy merited and received a good sound whipping which lasted until he obeyed, and held out his hands as the teacher bade him. Mr. Kilpatrick in summing up the case for the people, made the most of the facts, but remarked that they were not by any means such as would have made him bring action against a teacher. He then cited high legal authority, showing that teachers may inflict corporal punishment within the bounds of moderation, and remarked that it was highly reprehensible for parents to make any attempt to weaken the authority of the teacher. Mr. McBride, counsel for the defendant, followed with a neat reply, lasting exactly three minutes, and the case was left with the court. Without rising from his seat Justice Gale commented briefly upon the facts of the case, and ended by saying that in his opinion the defendant was not guilty. This case for the first, has elicited no small degree of comment, and it is to be hoped that the precedent established will not be wanting in effect upon that class who are always ready to wage war upon the teacher, if he exact obedience from their children.
RURAL TEACHER
New Haven, March 1, 1878.