The San Francisco call., 1898-09-03

4 tried. and convicted by seven < < judges three of whom. were preju- 4 < diced against him am, there < 4 fore, of opinion, first; that the < 4 charges presented against plain < + tiff did not amount to charges of < < unprofessional conduct; ;-second, that 4 4 he was not accorded fair and i'm 4 4 partial trial. It. is, therefore, or < 4 dered that writ of mandate issued 4 <+ herein; as prayed for.' 4 Such: is the concluding paragraph in a decision handed down by Judge Hunt yesterday reinstating E. c. Fitzpatrick as principal of the. Business Evening School Kilpatrich's victory over the Board of Education. is, for him, twofold. He has recovered his position, from which he was illegally removed, and the judgment of the court scores the official body guilty of the illegal act.
 When the case went to trial the board contended that the court had no jurisdic- ton and that it had Iio power to review the acts of that body, especially in the case of Fitzpatrick, as the board had de- termined that the charges against the teacher were sufficient and sufficiently es- tablished to warrant his dismissal as principal of the Business Evening School. In this the court differed from the board. Judge Hunt held that. as a Judge of the
 
 into the legal -sufficiency of the charges, and whether; if proven, they constituted statutory ground for the dismissal of the teacher. If such was not the case 1t would be within the power of the board to prefer any kind of charge against a teacher. go. through a form of trial, find the teacher. guilty and remove him from the department without authority of law There must be legal cause for remoNal, however, and, as the removal of Fitzpatrick was without warrant, the board has been. adjudged presumptive and must reinstate the dismissed teacher whether it. so desires or not
 ',.. Fitzpatrick was. tried by the Board of hduGation on six. counts. They charged attempt at blackmail: that the. accused had stated that he had Director Ragan under his thumb. that he had criti- : cized the Board of Education; had been gultX of unpEofessiouaI conduct in plan ~+ning to secure the removal of teachers by circulating false and malicious reports about them, and finally demanded, on be- half or one Stanton, compensation for five days services during the vacation period. % None: ot the allegations were proved in a satisfactory manner, but it seems that the plan to dlscharge Fitzpatrick was all cut and dried: and he was dismissed. .. .In:dhe opinion of the court, none of the charges lacking substantiation could weigh against the accused teacher. But furthermore. assuming that the charges, if proven, would justify plaintiffs re,
 
 moVal, reads the opinion, he was not accorded fair and impartial trial.'' The charges against plaintiff were sustained 9 by: a. vote of to. 3. one Director (Waller) being excused from voting and another Director being absent. When upon the trial by the board Director Ragan was called to the stand as q witness against Fitzpatrick counsel for Fitzpatrick objected to his acting as one of the judges The objectiQn,. however, was overruled, and Ragan'S testimony was the only testi- niony. offered in support of some of these charges.
 The secretary of the board testified that before the charges were filed he talked with Ragan about filing them, and also with Gallagher. Burns aild Waller and that they all thought that Fitzpatrick had been guilty of unprofessional conduct and -Ragan thought the charges ought to be filed Gallagher and Burns also acted as Without the vote of either of these three men Kirpatrck could not have been re- moved from the department. It was ad- mitted upon the trial in this court that while the. board found Fitzpatrick guilty upon all: of the charges, no evidence what ever was offered in support of one of them.
 "It thus appears that upon one of these charges at least Ragan, who sat in the , Judgment seat, was not only prosecutor and witness, but it also appears that he had been consulted about the charges be- fore they were filed and that he and two of the other occupants of the judgment seat-Directors Gallagher and Burns had in advance of the hearing made LID. their. minds that plaintiff was guilty"
 Such. being the state of things, a writ of mandate. has been ordered to issue and the Board. of Education has suffered an unwelcon1e defeat: