Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1908-02-22
WHO is COURT
HOUSE JANITOR?
GEORGE KITTERMAN MAY BE RE-
INSTATED FOLLOWING
THE REVERSAL.
MAY GET BACK PAY
Seneca Cornell, County Attorney,
Will ask for Rehearins In the
Case May Need Man.
damus Proceedings.
MAY GET BACK PAY


damus Proceedings.
Is George Kitterman entitled to the
ianitorship at the court house? Such
seems to be the general opinion OF
the judges Of the Iowa supreme court.
Mr.. Kitterman may be reinstated
with pay for time lost
Seneca Cornell, county attorney.
yesterday received a copy of the
opinion handed down last Saturday
by Judge McLain of the Iowa SUI
preme court in the case of George
Kitterman against, the Wapello coun-
ty board of supervisors, c. H. Dorothy
the present janitor of the court house
and others.
The opinion, which reverses the
decision in the case of the lower
court states that the contract of Kit
terman had no definite time fixed to
limit his services. 1t was on this
point that the case was reversed. The
board has right to limit time of con-
tract. nevertheless
VIII Ask for Rehearng.
County Attorney Cornell will ask
|
and endeavor to convince that body
that Kitterman's contract was in eff
feet for only one year, although not so
stated in the contract, he having been
re-employed by the old board after
his time expired in 1906.
Chester w. Whitmore is of the
opinion that the reversal will mean
the reinstatement Of Mr.. Kitterman
to the janitorship of the court house
and pay for the time he has been
forced out of the job.
4 Should the board of supervisors re-
/ fuse to reinstate Mr.. Kitterman,
mandamus proceedings may be
brought to compel them to do so.
The opinion of the court in full fol
lows:
i The Opinion.
i The plaintiff in his petition asked
for writ of certiorari and also q
;. writ of mandamus with reference to
the protection and enforcement OF
his right to be appointed and contin
j, ued in the office of janitor of the
court house in Wapello county, alleg
ing that he was veteran of the late
: civil war honorably discharged from
|
entitled to preference in appoint
ment and continuance in that Office
under the provisions of Chapter 8, o
3 the acts of the Thirtieth General AS
sembly Q904) The defendant, Doro
e thy, answered that he was holding the
! Office or appointment under a contrac
: with the board Of supervisors OF tn
/ county The board of SUPERVISOR
n and the members of the board indi
Y vidually, who were made parties de
. PENDANT, joined in this answer. Th'
:; defendant also filed objections to tn
issuance of writ asked for by tn
. plaintiff and to the granting of re
e straining order as applied for by him
o The plaintiff demurred to defendants
e answer and objections which de
n murrer being overruled and plaintiff
n electing to stand upon his demurrer
9 Judgment was rendered against plair
4 tiff for costs. From this judgment tn
j plaintiff appeals.
Chester w. Whitmore for Ape
J. lants.
i Smith & Lewis and Seneca Cornell
e county attorney, for Appellees,
s McClain j.
- From the allegations and admit
ia sions found in the answer to whic
1t plaintiff demurred. we may make til
J. following abridged statement of tn
e, facts to which the provisions of tn
: Veterans Preference act are to be al
piled. On Jan. 5, 1906, the defendar
board Of supervisors by resolutio
u providing for the appointment of va
@ ious officers 'for the year endin
tnJ LOT, c
e janitor of the court house. Plainti
. >. had, however, already been servin
er as janitor from March l, 1905 c
Jan. 4, 1907. the defendant. Doroth
made application to the board in wri
e, ing asking that he be appointed ar
h. employed as janitor and showing hi1
. self to be an honorably discharge
soldier of the civil war. On the ne,
" day plaintiff made application for r
appointment "as janitor Of the cou
q house at the expiration of my presel
= term" setting forth his claim or pr
ference as an honorably discharge
= soldier. On February 8, following Il
defendant, Dorothy. was appointed ia
itor for the year ending March
1908, and plaintiff on the 18th of II
r same month protested against t
failure of the board to favorably a
on his application and demanded Il
right to be heard in an Investigate,
of any charges that might be MAJ
against him. Nevertheless the boar
all on the goth of the month, entered
to contract with Dorothy to perfor
'le in general and specifically the duti
~ of janitor of the court house at
" agreed compensation. for the We
al commencing March 1, 1907 1t W
alleged In the answer that the boa
Is made an investigation as to the gu
ifications of the two applicants. a
ay after being duly advised by such
vestigation, decided and determin
that as between them, both bel
honorably discharged soldiers of t
late civil war, the defendant, Dorot
a possessed superior competency, qua
~ fications and fitness for such appoi
ment, but 1t is not alleged that a