Commonwealth v. Roberts
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- McDuffy v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Education (Mass. 1993)
- New Life Baptist Church Academy v. Town of East Longmeadow (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1987)
- Delconte v. State (N.C. 1985)
- State v. Pilkinton (Mo. Ct. App. 1958)
- People v. Levisen (Ill. 1950)
- Care & Protection of Charles (Mass. 1987)
- State v. Massa (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1967)
- Knott v. Rawlings (Iowa 1959)
- People v. Turner (Cal. Ct. App. 1953)
- People v. Turner (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California 1953)
- State v. O'Dell (Ind. 1918)
- State v. Peterman (Ind. Ct. App. 1904)
- Brunelle v. Lynn Public Schools (Massachusetts Superior Court 1997)
- Commonwealth v. Renfrew (Mass. 1955)
- Butler v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 1917)
- City of New York v. Chelsea Jute Mills (City of New York Municipal Court 1904)
- State v. McCaffrey (Vt. 1896)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The 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
The 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
The evidence which was excluded should have been admitted.
Verdict set aside.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.