Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1903-10-01
PRICE ONE GENT
HOSPITAL CASE
ARGUED TODAY
FOR AND AGAINST NURSE
PUSEY'S DISMISSAL.
Decision Reserved.

The argument in the Emergency Hos
pltal case was heard At noon today i'm the
Circuit Court of Anne Arundel county
before Judges Revell and Iones
This is suit by the Board OF Mana
gers of the Hospital for the writ of man
damus TO compel Miss Pusey to deliver
up the hospital property. keys and ap-
purtenanceS and 10 cease to exercise the
duties of her Office as superintendent,
the decision in which c sc will settle the
controversy as TO whether the Board of
Managers has right 10 discharge the
superintendent without the concurrence
OF the Medical Staff.
The case was opened by the counsel
for defense, AR. James NJ. Munroe, who
stated the object of the hospital, reading
IT'S charter. constitution and by.laws.
specifying duties of officers, &c. MIR.
Munroe said the Medical Staff had no
vote IN control of management of hospi-
tai. other than professional He referred
to the tenure OF Miss pusey' 5 office, and
quoted legal references 10 establish the
Boards right to dismiss her, stating the
Board after requesting her resignation,
gave her notice of discharge.
The attorney for plaintiffs stated the
Medical Staff has nothing to do with the
hospital as corporate body TO the sup
port OF which the State. city and county
contributes. He asked the question to
whom the State looked for the RESPONSE
blllty OF management but TO this Board
OF Lady Managers, and referred to the
Medical Staff as an extraneous power
which had been claimed TO be superior
to the Board, which body has been com
PEELED to manage affairs with its hands
tied by this extraneous power. Mr..
Munroe stated the superintendent has
much more to do at the hospital than 70
obey the Medical staff and administer to
patients, but has the administration of
the hospital domestic affairs as well,
that there are times when there are no
patients there. and she must do this work.
He quoted legal authorities showing that
the right TO select does not interfere with
the right to eject, and that the Staff is
SIMPLY recommendatary in its power, an
extraneous power which had been claim
ed the superior power that were thwart
and destroy the power itself. Mr.. Mum
roe asked the question "if the Board OF
Managers has not the power to appoint,
who has =
Mr.. Moss argued for the defendant,
| claiming in his argument that the Board
of Managers has not the right to remove
the superintendent. while il has the right
TO appoint only upon the recommenda
ton of the Medical Staff. Mr.. Moss
made strong argument. citing numer-
Gus legal authorities to substantiate his
argument. He said it. was not unusual
in this country for gigantic corporations
TO exercise no function. He said COR
porations were usually delighted with
their power, and referred to the dual
government at the hospital. He said
where the nomination or appointment of
an employe is subject to confirmation,
the appointing power is a dual one, and
he cited the instance of the method OF
Baltimore police appointments.
The argument was closed at 3 o'clock
by MIR. Nngkbe for the plaintiffs. The
q decision sNb cKyfa