The San Francisco call., 1910-02-20
PERJURY DENIED IN
SCHOOL BOARD WAR
TayIOr's AppOintees File Affi-
davits Asserting That They
Were Threatened
Judge Sturtevant Reserves De-
cisiOn on Application TO
Dissolve Injunction

Judge Sturteyant Yesterday took
under submission the motion of the
Mccarthy board Of education ap-
pointees for the dissolution OF the in
functions preventing them from taking
ofice The case was closed after more
thau three hours OF argument yester-
Gay morning. though the contending
attorney-s were given until Monday
night 10 submit further points and
lists Of authorities.
Frank J. Murphy and Alexander
oGrady argued the motions 10 dissolve
y behalf Of the administration ap-
poiutees. while Charles :. Wheeler ap-
peared for the three members Of the
old Tsvlor board. The showing made
was similar 10 that presented in con-
nection with the argument on the orig
ina injunction. which was dissolved
last week prior 10 the appointment by
Mayor Mccarthy OF the three men
chosen by him for succession 10 the
Office. but several new points were
raised.
THREATS TREATED As FORCE
At the outset OF the hearing wheeler
fled several afida Wits contradicting
those presented by Murphy Friday and
on which the latter based his charge
that periured statements had been made
o. the old board members relative 10
their forcible election from the head
quarters Of the hoard. In his argu-
ment Wheeler declared that il was
Nurphy's misconception Of what act
uaUy constituted force that used him
20 make the charges that perjury had
been committed.
Wheeler asserted that showing of
force. accompanied by threats and
zrousing q fear Of violence. amounted
TO the same thing as actual violence
itself. The q fiiosvitS were 10 the effect
that threats were made at the time of
the seizure Of the hoard rooms by the
new sPpointees and that the old men,
berS left in the face OF threats after
protesting against the expulsion.
WOMEN's SUTTCASEs OPENED
Mrs Mary u. Kincsid. one Of the
TAYLOR members Of the boa I'd. swore in
her supplementary affidavit that when
she was about 10 leave the board Of
education hes dQusrters with her suit
case The door was barred by 2 police
man and she was told that she could
not 80 until she had exhibited the con-
tents OF the case.
Miss Myra Jeffers. who was with Mrs.
kincsid al the time and whose suit
case also was opened. made a similar
affidavit, both being in direct contra
diction Of those signed by several
policemen. in which it was stated that
rhe suitcases were opened by the two
women Of their own volition.
Frank ]. Murphy, who opened the
argument in behalf of the unseated
Mccarthy sppOintees took the position
that the present injunctions could not
be sustained under the rule cited last
week by Judge Sturtevant in his opin-
ions on the original board of educs-
tion and board of health injunctions.
OFFICE HOLDER HAS ADVANTAGE
The point Of both those opinions was
generally to the effect that a de facto
officer was entitled TO an injunction
against any adverse claimant whereas
no claimant was entitled to an in
junction against lie facto officer, re-
gardIess Of the merits Of the opposing
contentious
Murphy insisted that the general
principle as laid down by the court
concerning de facto officers would not
apply where II was shown cOnclusiVeiy
that the de facto officer at the time
being had no title or claim of title to
the Office and he argued further that
this was the position of the Taylor
members of the board
Though the question OF the merits
of the adverse claims coUiG not bee de-
cided by Judge Sturtevant in the pres
ent action, the argument Yesterday
turned on this point for the reason
that il was tacitly admitted by both
sides that the claimant must show at
least 2 plausible case.
QUESTION OF STATE OFFICE
Wheeler consequently took the
ground tha; the right of the Taylor
members Of the board to retain their
AZ 1,2f faT
Jion and that their contentious were
advanced in good faith. He argued
that the members Of the school board
were state officers instead Of munich
pal officers and that the mayor had
20 right or power TO remove them.
although given power by the charter
10 make appointments to I'LL vacancies.
Murphy attacked the theory that
tie members Of the board OF educa-
ton were state officers. insisting that
TIE control or the local school district
was expressly given to the city as a
municipality and not put into the
hands Of individuals chosen by mu-
nicipal authority TO act as state Off
cials.
The mayor, ne declared. acted entire
ly within his rights in making the
removals. and the question OF what
constituted a sufficient cause for re-
moval or the truth OF the allegations
concerning TINS cause were matters
with which the courts had no right TO
deal
ARGJ NENT On POSSESSION
O'Grady confined his argument 10
one line. taking as his theme the con-
tention that possession was an essen
tial element in determining who was
and who was not a de facto officer.
From this he argued that the present
iBjunctiOps could not stand. for the
reason that at the time they were
issued the Mccarthy sppointees were
in actual possession of the offices of
the board. The manner in which such
possession was secured. he said, would
have no effect one way or the other
Prior TO the Submission of the case
Judge SturteYant himself took hand
in the argument, asking for q discus
sion of certain lines upon which he
said he felt his decision might turn
The attorneys in the board OF health
cases. in which Judge Sturtevant last
week refused an injunction to prevent
the Mccarthy appointees from taking
Office, met yesterday and settled the
bill OF exceptions on which the case
l. q