The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1886-06-02


matters set forth In these two papers as auui
tional facts. were not before the County
Board at the hearing. do not properly H coiii1
before us and cannot, of course, be consluerea.
1t is not improper, however, to say that we
have read these papers and find notnlns III
them which, If properly brouSht pelo,c c,od' m1'
would affect the conclusion we have reacnea.
Looking at the case as presented, IL appGuiis
that for many years, the school for white
children living on both sides of Hard LABOR
Creek in School District No. 8. has been 10
Gated at White Hall on the Western sue OF
the creek. The crossings on the creek are
badly hept and, at times, difficult OF passage
by Small children on loot Some OF the chill
dren have to travel n distance OF over Two
euaTe of the Complaint, "it is not Of the dis
tauce, but of the natural obstacles that inter-
vene" that complaint Is made. hecehtiy,
owing to the incoming OF numocr OF Mnlle
tenants, the greater number OF the chlldren,
dependent on the school. are located on tne
East tido of the creek. Tho Trustees all live
on the West side of the creek, and Two OF
them are patrens OF Whiic Hall sci9o,, 3os
Bigby and others residing on the East side OF
the creek, became desirous to have a school
locatdd on that side, and encourage py un,
official declarations by two of the trustees 10
the effect that it was likely there would be no
objection to the location Of such school,
they obtained the use of suitable mousse
procured school furniture and made applica,
tion for school. Upon consideration, the
majority of the Board of Trustees, declined
to Grant the request. Mr.. Bigby and his as
sociates, nevertheless, employed teacheT
ehoo At the end IN nroyde SI yhG
the pay of the teacher, formal e9mpiaiint
was laid before the County Board Of EXamin-
ers charging the Board OF trustees Nv WIN chnO w30
asked for, and praying reversal OF thelr ac-
tion. The 18th of March was appointed jor
the hearing of the controversy. Ihougn IN
formally notified of the charge. the written
Complaint was not served upon the Trustees
until the day before the hearing. The Answer
of the Trustees was read at the hearing With
out having been first served upon tne CON, n
plainants. Neither side, however, appears 10
have complained Of want OF notice, or 10
have asked for further time. No witnesses
were present, no testimony was taken, ana
without further objection from either slde,
the Board of Examiners proceeded to deter,
mine the controversy on the Complaint ana
Answer alone, with the exception lnat MT.
Hearst. representing the Compiainants, was s
Thc Judgment of the County Board was as
follows: AFTER reading the grounds OF ap-
peal and the statement OF the Board OF Irus,
ices, and upon due consideration Thereon, we
confirm the action OF the boar9 o. 49nstvSs;, e.,
to this Board. The Grounds Of Appeal, ten
in number, in so far as applicable to case as
70 the sGare have
hearing, inasmuch as they were taken oy
surprise by the answer Of the Trustees, ana
no witnesses were summoned and examined
by the County Board.
2nd That the Judgment of the County
Board was erroneous upon the facts as pre-
sented.
il seems to be assumed by the Appellants
that, under the School Law, 1T Is the duty OF
the County Board of Examiners, not only TO
sit as a tribunal for hearing and determining
any matter of local controversy IN reference
to the construction or admipistration OF the
school laws, but to advise and direct the par
ties in the preparation of the controversy,
hunt up and select their witnesses and sum.
mon and examine them. The 4th GROUND OF
Appeal reads because the County Board OF
Examiners should have summoned the wit.
nesses and taken the testimony as provided
by Section 1907 of the Revised Statutes" 1t Is
true that under the School Law, the County
Board have right to supervision over the
action of the Boards of Trustees in the con-
troll and arrangement of the School Districts
and, In the exercise Of this right, may have
occasion to summon witnesses OF their oWn
selection and, on their own motion, to aid
them IN some investigation necessary for the
Enlightened exercise OF their supervisory
power; but 1t seem scarcely necessary 10 say
that when the Board sits as a tribunal for the
hearing of a controversy, 1mpart1ality re-
Quires that it take no part in the preparation
or presentation of the matter in dispute on
either side except in so far as the same may
be effected by the enforcement OF such COM
mon law rules and regulations as may be
necessary to secure to the litigantS falr, or.
derly and impartial hearing. AS a matter OF
course. the parties must themselves, make all
needful preparation and, If there Is an I'M
perfect presentation of either side, the blame
cannot, on any rational ground; be saddled
upon the Court. If witnesses are deemed
necessary, the Board can be applied to for the
proper process by which TO secure their at
tendance. Section 1907 of the School Law
simply vests in the County Board, sitting as q
have, to summon witnesses at the instance OF
the parties to the controversy, and to COM
pei their attendance. In short, in the matter
Examiners is Court, and not an Investigate
ing Committee. In this case, If either party
was taken by surprise, If complaint had been
made. the Board would doubtless, upon a
for preparation, and, had witnesses been de-
sired, and the proper process asked for, there
can be doubt that the Board would have
summoned the witnesses named, and TAX
Ing been made at the time to the
manner in which the controversy was heaad,
it cannot be made Ground Of Appeal TO us
that the pr
they could have made @ stronger showing.
Judging from the Complaint, the Appellants
seem to have regarded themselves as appeal
ing from the Board of Trustees to the County
Board Of Examiners. No such appeal is pro-
vided for by the law. The Board Of Trustees
is not Court. There can be no trial before
such Board and Of course no appeal: me nc
questioned on proper grounds before the Coun-
ty Board of Examiners, which is the County
Court of original jurisdiction, for the hearing
of all local controversies arising under the ad-
ministration of the School Laws. The only
appeal provided for In the system is the ap-
peal from the Judgment of the County Board
Of Examiners to the State Board of Exami-
before eSSi the the % County Board The pleadings need
not be in writing, and no formalities are nee
essary except such as may be imposed by the
Court for the purpose Of having the issues 3 dis
Ing had. The manner of hearing the case
may be made the subject of appeal only when
some request has been refused, compliance
with which was necessary to secure fair and
impartial hearing Of the controversy.
The Appeal. in the second place, questions
the correctness of the judgment Of the County
Board on the case as presented. Boards OF
Trustees for School Districts are empowered,
under the law, to take the management and
control of the local educational interests OF
their respective districts, fix the sites for
school houses, provide the same, and select
School Law. TO do this, discretion, subject to
the supervision of the County Board of Ex-
aminers, is vested in them by the Law. Some
wise and convenient method has to be provid-
ed for adjudgng what is best for the school
districts in tho respects mentioned, and, to eff
feet this, the law has entrusted the Judgment
to Board of Trustees appointed by the Coun-
accomplished would not be attained if the
Judgment Of the Board Of Trustees were not
upheld and protected from the assaults of
mere differences of opinion. AS Judge COL
cock said, In Commissioners Of the Poor VS..
Edward Lynah, Nice. Rep. III whenever a
discretion is given, the Court will not inter-
fere unless 1t be clearly shown that this dis
cretion has been abused" A school house
cannot be located without subjecting to in
convenience some who are obliged to be its
patrons, and these persons will, in the majorI.
ty of instances, consider the determination OF
the Board erroneous and unwise To permit
. no nf Snch discretion
on the ground, alone, of error of judgment,