Daily gazette and comet. (Baton Rouge, La.) 1856-186?, 1860-06-08

tablished principal In this Country as well
as in England that no Bylaw Is valid
that eontradiets the Charter or varies the
Constitution of the Corporate Body" and !
that thew must be subordinate to the
Charter and not violative of tho law OF
the land, 2. Kent. 900. Now the BY Law |
which limits the discretion vested IN the
Board, and enlarges the tern, and varies
the tenure of the Office from that contem-
plated by the act, can have no binding et-
feet, even though it be more reasonable
in itself than the Charter from whepee ~
eminates for in doing so II overrides the
Charter and the Government which erea-
ted IL assumes the prerogative of Govern-
ment, and places the power in different
hands, and under different restrictions
from that contemplated by the Govern,
meut: Rex Va. Geuiver, Dumford and
East 1892. Reg VS.. Burlington SCHOOL,, 9
2. b. $50. How then can my authority be
claimed in the present instance for any OF
the By Laws that are inconsistent with
the Chatter all such are in contemplation
of law, IA If they had not been written,
and being void, may in any case calling
for the action Of the Board, he properly
disregarted. When the manner of elee-
ting officers is not specially pointed out in
the Chatter, the Corporation may IRON
time 10 time make Bylaws to regulate
their election consistent with the Charter,
2. Dumford and East 1879, and the appoin-
Zee holding an Office under the appoint
ment by pvblie Corporation (having no
proprietary interest or vested right IN the
office, which IL is conceded cannot exist IN
a public office held az discretion takes "
subject TO the right of the Corporations,
who may subsequently be called to exer-
- Int. Mt tn m a
such regulations or bylaws as they may
deem expodient consistent with the Char
ter from time 10 time to regulate their cleo
ton. !. Danes abridgement 70. ASS.
But eonceding that the act ofls55 is con-
stitutional, winch think is not the case,
and that the By Laws of 1853, which were
re-adopted in 1859, are authorized by its
terms, has not the Respondent been dives
ted BY the act of the Board on the 7th OF
| April. 1901 II appears that on that day
| Il was. "Resolved that the officers Of the
| Asvlum appointed by the preceding Board
,rere nor out NJ q6Fce by limitation" only TO
remain In office until others are appointed
| in their places: this was carried by the vote
of Messrs. Allen, Sparks, Mediation, Bur-
CESS aud Bynum in favor, and Layeoek
| against the resolution. This take II TO
he n Substantial compliance with the terms
| of the Bylaw that required the vote OF
| i've of the Board 20 remove the General
| Superintendent. II then became "idit
acconpli," having it's full effect, unless
revoked by, M IL commended, viz the sub
sequent action of the Board at the meet
ing on the second May, 1850, in nuthoriz
ing a reconsideration for the express pur-
pose of allowing Mediation to change his
vote to the negative. II must be borne IN
mind however, that the Board at that
meeting. under the general powers not
only of the charter but Of the Bylaws
when they had temporarily adopted, had
| by a legitimate vote declared that The
Ruies II the old Board Of Administrator'
Of the asyl,r,n be and they are hereby de-
cfarei null and cold" The permission tc
Mr.. Mediation TO change his vote, canno
be fairly construed in the face ofthis sweep
ing repeal. into a repeal of the previous re
solution, vacating all the offices Of the In
stitution, or arevival of the particular BY
Law, by which one Of them is claimed u
be hedged In and protected. II Is not Thu
province of the Court to enquire into thu
motives of the Board in the exercise ofth'
discretionary powers vested in It by law
but merely to Judge whether the powe
exercised IL within the scope Of its author
ity. In this case am constrained to ad
opt the conclusion. Il at they had the RICH
to declare by majority of a quorum tn
BY Laws enacted by their predecessors null
and void "a to them selves, and to repea
them aud in like manner to vacste all th
offices if they "deeD,ed Il proper for The goo
MANAGEMENT Of TIE iHstnufi0n." The re
spondent having been displaced by tn
legitimate action Of the Board on the II
: of April. 1860, and the Relator McMai
! having been duly appointed General Sup
erintendent on the 10th May, 1850.
II is ordered, adjndged and decreed, tn
law and the evidence authorizing th
same, that the plaintiff VIM. W. McMsir
be recognized as the duly appointed Gen
eral Superintendent Of the Institution G
the Deaf, Dumb and Blind at Baton Roug
, and that James s. Brown the Responder
do deliver to him the said Office with a
: fits rights and privileges, and pay th
costs of Of suit to be taxed.
. (Signed) DANIEL ID. AVERY,
Judge Sixth Judicial District.
CLFRK's OFFICE, East Baton Rouge
hereby certify the foregoing to be
true copy Of the original judgment on 81
in my office.
Given under my hand and seal Of
fcially at Baton Rouge, this Tth da
Of June, A. D., 1860.
| Ioaupu CLARK