The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1909-10-27
INDICATION IN
SCHOOL M|X-UP
No Decision Yet, but Board Is
Upheld and Abilities of Mrs.
Scott Unquestioned.

At the conclusion of the argument
in the suit brought against the Terri
tory to recover the $500 claimed by
Mrs. Nellie NJ. Scott, in the supreme
court yesterday morning, the chief JUS
tee gave his oral opinions on the merits
of the case which in substance amour.
to vindication of the methods of the
board of public instruction and also the
character and qualifications of the
plaintiff.
In some measure the remarks of the
chief justice condemned the method in
which NJ. F. Scott, husband and attor-
ney of Mrs. Scott, presented the plain
tiff case. He outlined the course
that would be pursued in a common
law pleading and further stated he saw
no reason why that procedure would
not have covered the case in question
thoroughly.
The case has been taken under advise
ment, but according to the chief justice,
the supreme court will not, under the
circumstances, deliberate upon what
fault the board acted upon in making
the transfer of Mrs. Scott from the
Holualoa school, if there was a fault
IN so doing.
Chief Justice Hartwell said in sub.
stance, Referring TO the plaintiff s
suggestion that the defendant had no
right to refer to committee the Ques-
ton Of her removal, this is the only
point worthy of consideration. AS
Justice Wilder suggested, the complaint
appears to be brought for wrongful
dismissal-for wrongfully preventing
the petitioner from doing the service.
The common law pleading would be
something like this, that the plaintiff,
at defendants request, agreed with de-
PENDANT that she be head teacher at the
Holualoa school in the county of Ha-
waii for one year at salary of $500
payable monthly, and although she was
ready and willing TO perform the service
the defendant wrongfully refused to al
low her to do SO, whereby she lost her
salary and was deprived of an oppor-
tunity to earn the same. That is the
way the common law pleader would put
the case before the court. Unfortu-
nately, to my way of thinking, we do
not have enough common law pleading
here.
"But if it was not the department
that did this and it was done without
authority by its committee, that is an
other matter. Whether the remedy
then would be to bring some action at
law I need not say do not see why
the form of action | have mentioned
would not cover such a case. We shall
take the latter into consideration, but
it must not be supposed that we shall
review the action of the department
and say whether it acted under a mis-
take or lack of information.
I" However. in any way of looking at
the matter, there is a question that has
not been suggested, and that is, wheth-
er in any event, under Bartlett VS..
Carriage Co., Is Haw. 81, any more
than nominal damages could be recov-
cred. Under that decision, which is
common law generally, one who is de-
prived of the opportunity to carry out
an agreement for service has to make
an effort to obtain service Of a similar
kind, and failing to make the effort,
would be entitled to only nominal dam
ages. | regret very much that this
course was taken by the plaintiff and
that this action was brought. 1t seems
too bad that teacher of long expsr
ience-twenty years-and, so far as I
can judge, of fine qualifications, shown
by the desire of the department to
find another school for her, should be
losing salary and that the Territory
should lose the benefit of her services
as a teacher. I am afraid she has not
been well advised in taking this
course.