The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-10-30

s 9FSf u attendants. answer M the
h NJ 4 N. Ixgan VI. Henry -. ffelleyr
" III Wss Sustained IN the Fifty*hafe dis !,
fiaut, curt cdays This Il : case vte19 iirsI
n Nv l1i1d On pecord IN this state> ifE TIC Ia
III II ~ Confederate Home VI
VI VIM n rnandamus TO prevent the Suuefs
96tSudeut nd hoard Of manaseu Of that
ISstit,,tion from discharging him on ac-
coupk " alieaed outrageous conduct. The
fcilpwins i the opinion Of the court -
tulis
sthh plaintlff. "A. r. Logan. having oeen
1lscharred from the Texas Confederate
3T0ine ~ the board Of manaEers OF that W.
Si4taI3Ion and nOtiffed by the suDeriptcndenl
!to Aeayc the home in pursuance 70 the pr
DEF of the board sites for tbs writ Of man
dari1Is 10 coYipel hts restoration 70 me
priSiieges Of the home
The answer OF the defcndan u omong otn-
IL things, denies he jurisdiction Of the courts
over ,tlae subject, and alleges that the plain
tifG was discharged from the home ior
viulating rule adopted by the board. pro-
vfdsnR for the discharge Of inmates VINO
.ehouid be guilty OF any gross or outrage,
crA behavior. stating that he was charged
Nv one CANNED with gross and outrageous
behavior consisting of imprcper and dis
honorable proposals 10 the minor daughter
81 said CANNED, who was about AZ years
Of age
TIE PLAINTIFF demurs to the defendants
arkwer on the ground. among others. That
II hoes not charge that the outrageous be-
hayaor OF plaintiff was committed on tue
premises Of the Confederate Home, This
demurrer raises the question as to whether
II was necessarily that the defendants should
saIle6e that tho bad behavior occurred on
the premises OF the home in order to come
Nj lin fbx iQdi ~ nm nj q
the plaintiffs conduct and tho question
has been argued BY both sides from The
STANDPOINT that the outrageous conduct
In question wus charged to have been en-
acted elsewhere than in the home.
There are. therefore. two questions raised
for decision: first. whether this court mas
jurisdiction to afford relief by writ OF man
damus. il tao plaintiff has been removed
without lawful cause for his removal; and
second. whether the board OF managers
have power to make rules governing The
behavior Of the inmates OF the home when
they nre away from the premises OF the
home.
The objection to the jurisdiction of this
court was not urged In argument. but coun-
sci for tho board expressed TO the court
his cpinlon that the court had jurisdiction
10 afford relief. il the board had exceaded
10 Jurisdiction in making and enforcing
rule ms to the behavior Of inmates when
away from the home. think there van
be no doubt OF the jurisdiction of the court,
The Texas Confederate Home is n public
institution Supported by tho State al
nome for all INDECENT aud disabled x-Co,
leuerato soldiers and sailors within this
state, who were bona fide residents within
tnis State january l. 1895. aud are not
iunatics or afflicted with anyycontagiouj
Or Infectious discase. Such aoldiers have
legal right enter and remain In the
nome 10 Iona as there liz room for Them
Of until they BY conduct forfeit the right
70 remain there. They are rot subject IL
removal at the discretion OF the board. hu,
Il onay FOR cause. This members Oh tho beard
ere public Officers. If the spIaintiff has
oeSn depnved OF his legal right by publis
Oflcers who owe him the ministerial dut,
to admit him 10 the home. thelr Jurisdiction
4 0f power to discharge him from the home
On tne grounds assigned as cause FOR nj.
removal may be inquired into by n rour
~. mna @iiof may be afforded by the wrlt o
Y u,auuaMus. Fhis Jurisdict!on however.
does not extend to q revision Of Chs actio,
e. the board In matters committed Ia m,
1iscretion OF the board. but only to a nav,
rsiief II they have exceeded their mower,
Johnson ". The City OF Galveston. n
& Court Civil Appeals. 44g. Manning vs nv,
San Antonio Club So Texas. 1sG scrs ~
men,s Benevolent Association W.. Henson
~ Texas. 552., -'eAsoi'
y, iSae next, question TO be decided Is hi
.ne ooard OF managers have power. undo
81, sns NV: 70 make this rulo for tho govern
"! 1ltent OF the Inmates OF the homc II th,t
hcsDHsi? PSN''Ses OF "
the only power which THO board ~.
N Is ssrsoyn ohe having ~ right to enter m
u 81. 10Y hts conduct while q member !
Y = nes Z n. expressed IN that part Of III
- IS " establishing the homo which provids
lnet tne board shall mako ana preserif
s.,cM RUSS and rcg,ilatiors his may bo Nos
&ss vs sss5y Tor the internal government ,ijsci
Il sr sal,. ANA management OF the home m
X s.Asla nave power To enforce obedience ,
q s IN conspi'ance with said rules and ree,
a IA 1slons gny discharglnx from tho home. n i
4 ~ Judgment II DO necessary. any hmm,
Y ti0ns." wuu 1eSuia
MnE statute vests the discretion IN IN
\ n09ru 20 nischarge q member for tho vlola
x tst@ % 6ny rule which the board has NJ
pnwer to make; hut tho rover ~ r,at !,
)fukS - limited to the making OF sno
rules and regulations "a may DO nenss
4 xary por the internal government, siiscplin
80 me nasemen|t OF the home " This staI
wN leaves nothing Tor Implication. but *
mo Inmates 10 such regulations ar NAV i
neoessaW Tor the internal government
G:soapline ana management At the homo
the siae Of the woti "internap excludes III
sdea that tl1e board can govern the 81
n u "a q me old eoidlers on the premise
q Sne n0re IN nstterx not Interfering Wit
th4 antexnel workings Of the home. II 4
eMW ~ their relatione to the iuternaI worl
N ri ~ nome that they are subject
cV1yNqa by ta1o board 1T managers, In y,
IL ssslpeH to eoctaty end government on ii
rs Es 49,. = s. re nome they are responslbl
al, ~ ~ ma ~ such condemnation and uvtrs
Tx ~ Sookefy ard their FELLOW men Al
Sfg ~ visit upon those who uiw guilt
y 8 .91 xaesous tIAict y that impute