The log cabin Democrat., 1907-04-04
|sCHOOL DIRECTORS ENJO|NED
From Employing Relative as
 Teacher in No. B.
Mrs. Pine Brady Refused Divorce h Case Not Contested-Other Business Be-
 fore Chancery Court.

 matters before the chancery court, which was in session here last week, was the suit instituted by +. [. Blair, citizen of Benton Township, against l.. H. Living Iston, Ira Clark and P. V. Hamil- lion, directors of school district No. A3 to enjoin them from employ ing |Dr. w. I. Clark as teacher of the |public school in that district. The Tease was tried on last Thursday land after the hearing the court |qranted the injunction.
 The laws of Arkansas prohibit |the employment as a teacher of a public school any person who IS |related to anyone of the directors |within the fourth degree of con- |sanguinity, unless two-thlrds ot the patrons of the school petition for |his employment.
 It appeared from the testimony that Dr. Clark, whom the board had employed as a teacher of the public school in district g, was a nephew of Ira Clark, one of the dl- rectors, but it was claimed that kwo-thirds of the patrons of the lchool had petitioned for his em- 1 |ployment. The whole question Turned upon the construction ot the word patron. The petition presented to the directors contain ed exactly two-thirds of the resi- dent taxpayers of the district, but |did not contain the names of two thirds of the actual patrons of the school. The court sustained the contention of the plaintiff that |only those who actually had chil- dren of school age were qualified to sign the petition, and as the pc tition, after eliminating the names of those who were held not quail fled to sign, lacked several ot con taining the requisite number ot names, the injunction was granted, declaring the contract entered into between Dr. Clark and the di- rectors illegal and void, and en- joining any further proceedings under same.
 The plaintiff was represented by Frauenthal & Robins and J. L. Clark appeared on behalf ot the directors and Dr. Clark. A Mrs. Brady Refused Divorce. k Tn the case of Mrs. Pine Brady vs. John Brady, which was suit for divorce, alimony and the custo- dy of minor children, Chancellor Wallace held that, although the defendant had filed no answer, and was making no contest ill the mat ter, the testimony on behalf Of the plaintiff was not sufficient to justl- fly the granting of divorce. The plaintiff alleged that her husband quarreled with her, was very leal- ous of her and accused her of 1nt- delity. The evidence tended to show that he had always provided for her, and aside from his jealous ly, plaintiff had no cause for com plaint. The chancellor in render ing the decree stated that Ill his opinion the parties could and should make up and resume their marital relations.
 . Other Business Before Court.'
 The petition of Mrs. Susan Frances Watkins to have her name changed to Susan Frances Daven- port was granted by the court.
 The following divorces were granted:
 Giles Webb vs. Julia Webb.
 Boyd Pilgrim vs. Beulah Pll- grim.
 G. w. Douglass vs. Callie Doug lass.
 Minnie Parker vs. William Par ker. Plaintiffs maiden name, Minnie Goodwin, restored.
 Dollie Marshall vS. Ed Mar shall.
 Minnie Shell vs. Harrison Shell. Custody of two children granted plaintiff and costs of case taxed 'against defendant.
 The following cases were dis missed:
 Railway Go. vs. J. J. Martin and w. H. Lovil.
 Pine Brady vs. John Brady.
 New England Mortgage Securl- ty Co. vs. Addison Lind, ct al.
 Same vs. G. w. Barley.
 J. K. O. Sherwood, trustee, ct al, vs. Andrew Jackson, ct al.
 Same vs. James w. Roberts.
 Other cases were disposed ot as follows:
 Stern, Lauer, Shohl & Co. vs.