Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1880-04-23
MISS MARION YORKS.
The Reasons Why the saltwater School
Board Declines TO Pay $1,000 Dam.
ages for Excluding This Young Lady
From The Privileges of a High school.

Board Declines TO Pay $1,000 Dam.
ages for Excluding This Youpp LADY
From The Privileges of High school.
Pioneer Press
Some time ago the Pioneer Press mon.
toned the fact that Miss Marion Yorks
of Saltwater had commenced an action
in the Ramsey county district court nv
her attorney, Mr.. Charles N. Bell If
st. Paul, against the Saltwater CITY
school district. In this action the con.
plant alleged, in brief, that the plaintiff
had been damaged to the extent Of
81, 600 in consequence of her having
been refused permission to continue
ner course OF studies in the high school
of the city named. The whole affair
had arisen out of an alleged breach of
the rules of the school by the plaintiff,
for which she was excluded from the
schools privileges, temporarily at least.
A suit upon writ OF mandamus to
compel the board to readmit her had
previously failed.
The answer Of the defendant in the
action for damages has been served up.
on Mr.. Bell by Mr.. l.. E. Thorn pson of
Saltwater, the attorney of the defendant.
After entering general denial OF each
and every allegation in the complaint,
the answer denies that the plaintiff has
been damaged in any sum whatever.
1t is admitted that the complainant had
been pupil of the Saltwater schools
for ten years prior to March II, 1878;
but it is maintained she would have
finished her course of instruction in the
high school and secured all the benefits
derivable therefrom, had it not been for
her wrongful, disobedient and persistent
refusal to conform to the rightiul rules
and regulations of the high school. The
answer then sets forth certain of the
rules established by the Saltwater board
of education, which it is empowered to
make under the legislative act consti-
tuting the board. By virtue of these
rules the principal OF the high school is
authorized to administer appropriate
correction in case of misconduct in
any of the pupils, and in cases of ex-
IRENE difficulty and importance he is
to report to the board. Pupils of ma
ture age shall, when guilty of aggravated
misconduct, after due reprof and warn
ing, be suspended by the principal or
expelled by the board, and teachers
are not al liberty to excuse any pupil
from any particular branch of study
laid down by the board. Lastly, it is
provided that no pupil shall be admitted
except upon condition OF complying
with the regulations, and in case Of their
gross and continued violation, or of re-
sistance to the teachers authority, the
pupil may be excluded from the school
tor the time being. In August 1876, a
course of study was adopted, and has
since been continued, whereofrhetorical
exercises formed a portion. On divers
days between February 8, and March
IL, 1873, the plaintiff willfully and in
exeusably refused to fulfill her allotted
appointments and utterly refused 90
take part in the rhetorical exercises,
and after being specifically and re-
peatedlJ requested to do so by her
teacher and the principal. Ga February
28, 1878, her refusal was contemptuous
and impudent, and being persisted in,
the principal suspended her on March
IL, 1878, as he was fully authorized to
do, and reported the fact to the board.
On the 10th of the latter month, the
plaintiff attended q meeting of the
board and requested to be reinstated.
but to be excused from rhetoricals ex-
ercises. The board declined to grant
the latter part of her request, but by
resolution invited her to return to the
school and resume her studies subject
to the rules. She in turn declined to
accept the terms of the resolution, and
still refuses to comply Herewith, al
though the board and the principal
have ever been willing to receive her
into the school upon the conditions in
Dictated, which are the conditions upon
which all other pupils are admitted.
Finally the answer maintains the
plaintiff has no cause in this action, be-
cause she has already set forth the same
facts in previous action. in which it
was adjuged on March 6, 1879, that she
was not entitled to the relief she then
prayed for, or to recover from the de-
PENDANTS any sum as damages, especial
ly as that judgement was subsequently
affirmed on appeal bv the supreme
court on October 81, 1879.
1t is probable that change OF venue
will be taken in the premises by stipu-
lation from the Ramsey county district
court to that of Washington county.
1
/ POStOiiica Salaries In France.