Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1908-06-09

nave us arguments addressed TO Inc
discretion of the board. they are not
law made the basis for the preference
of one soldier above another.
The supreme court has. therefore,
disposed Of plaintiffs contention that
he was entitled to the place as mat
ter of law by reason of superior quail
flcations
The supreme court also determined
on the appeal that If plaintiff held tina
position of janitor by appointment or
employment for definite term. at its
expiration the board might appoint
another without regard to the super
visors of the statute relating to re-
moyal
This is plainly apparent from the
following quotation from the opinion.
= THE position of janitor Of the court
house is not recognized by any statue,
and the defendant board, no doubt,
had the right to provide for the filling
of such position for definite term,
OF to let the work by contract ana as
to any one accepting the position I'M
der such arrangement all rights would
be terminated on the determination OF
the employment or contract so that
the board might proceed to appoint
or employ another without regard -
the provisions of the statue with refer
ence to removal
1t was likewise determined on the
appeal that If he held the position by
employment or appointment for an in
definite term he could only be removed
after hearing, upon due notice, upon
| stated charges.
| With the law thus settled there is
| presented for determination the single
ultimate question of fact whether
plaintiffs appointment as janitor was
for definite or indefinite term. If for
definite term. then it is the law of
this case, laid down by the suprems
court. that at the expiration of TIL.
term the board could appoint another
honorably discharged soldier to the
place and this would not amount to a
removal Of plaintiff or afford him any
| legal ground of complaint. If, how
ever his appointment was for an in
definite term he could only be re-
moved after hearing upon stated
charges, and the appointment of an
! other to the place in the absence OF
such hearing would constitute sn
unlawful removal for which the law
affords remedy.
The evidence shows without. con-
flict,-indeed plaintiff so admits in his
| reply,-that his original employment
was by written contract for de-
| finite term ending March L. 1906. On
January 8, 1906, the board of super
visors appointed plaintiff janitor of
| ti1C Souitt LOuse lOT lHS yeuT eHQlIlS
March l, 1907, such action being re-
corded in the minutes Of the boards
proceedings Of that day as follows
THE following appointments We're
then made for the year ending March
l. 1907 George w. Kittermar,
janitor of court house, xxxx.''
The plaintiff. recognizing that in
order to succeed he must bring himself
within the rule Of the supreme court
as to employment for an indefinite
| term, and that both his original con-
tract and the subsequent action of the
board indicate employment for definite
and fixed terms, the last ending on the
date when plaintiff claims he was
Illegally removed, contends that the
last action of the board was taken
without his knowledge. and that he
never accepted employment under =.
He claims to have continued in his
employment after March /, 1906, the
expiration of the term provided for n
his original contract. without any ne "
arrangement or contract with the
board, and especially without any ar
rangement limitine or fixing termi-
nation to his term of employment and
that. therefore, after that date he was
i employed for an indefinite term and
hence, comes within the rule prohibit
ing removals except on charges anil
after hearing.
! The particular question of fact, then
Is narroyed to this: Was plaintiffs
employment from and after March l.
4 1905, for definite or an Indefinite
| term? There is no room for doubt tina.
the board of supervisors regarded his
employment as being for definite
term, for, by formal action spread
upon the minutes the board appoint
ed him for a fixed term commencing
nearly two months in the future II
1t be conceded that plaintiffs under
standing Of the terms and manner NJ
! his employment is controlling without
regard to how the board. the other
party to the contract, regarded it,
that fact must be determined from the
evidence. There is a conflict in the
/ testimony of the witnesses as to what
IL anything, was said by plaintiff and
reappointment and If that We're all
upon the question its satisfactory de-
termination would be different. But on
| the members Of the board as to his
January 4, 1907, plaintiff made writ
ten application, over his own signature
for reappointment in the following
language: Il hereby make application
for reappointment as janitor of thu
| court house at the expiration of my
| present term This. It is to be OBJ
served, was many months after his
employment for what is now claimed
!, was an 1ndenn1te term. w nile 1t Is
true this application for re-appoint-
ment is not to be considered as !,
waiver of his right to continue in thu
position until lawfully removed, If his
employment was In fact for an indefi-
mite term, yet the language is certainly
significant as tending to show how he
in fact, regarded his employment
Upon consideration of all the evil
4 dence upon the question. / am con-
strained to hold that plaintiffs en-
ployment after March /. 1906, was FOL
a definite term ending March 1, 1907.
1t follows that, under the rule an
nounced by the supreme court, the ap.
4 pointment of the present 1anitor, whs
Is likewise an honorably discharged
soldier, to take effect on the expira-
ton Of plaintiffs term was not a re.
moval Of plaintiff or in any way an in
fringement of his rights.
/ For the reason that the result now
arrived at is the same as was reached
on the former hearing in this court
4 which was reversed on appeal, it Is
not out of place to add few word!
Of explanation.
The original answer of the defend.
ants admitted that plaintiffs origina