New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-02-07
,,rellate Divisions Decree
III TrInholds Board on Plea
Of Mrs. PeiXotto.
,ov1SFS APPEAL TO
'ST8TE COMMISSIONER
viii Begin Again and Case
NH Be Carried to Higher
Tribunal.

.,ot suffered setback yester-
.el hands Of the Appellate D.
~s, co.rt unanimously decided
r.aeet C.. PcNotto. who was
.. . rulUc school teacher by
-. .r Ea.cauo. because she alb
...e.r .om hcr duties 90 give
..-t. cannot be re.nstatcd hv
s-s rI she has exhausted her
-.~e-r. which is an appeal TO The
...--.,. .orc- OF Education. The
Division reversed the decision
--,,-e Scauury. in the supreme
,r. cranted the mandamus d.
-. tse aoar3 Of Education to rein
v, pozotto as teacher
-r-.te charge on which the
-.~,--er was dismissed was
49,. Of duty" bat an throush the
of INC rcarug on the charSes
... Mrs TcSotto were references 10
...t-s Dirt. 90 child. She contend
a., she had obtained permission to
49, auay from her class because OF
and Justice Scabury held that
Z. ,,r.,rsror was Sufficient
=. Appellate Division held that Mrs.
,.,,.,o should have first taken her case
- .,. s,.te rommiss. oner % Educa-
y. and NOT obtaining remedy there
..-.., have taken her case into court.
i. 81. A.a-.ne that point was made by
=. coronation counsel. but Alfred J.
80, .o.n~e. for the teacher, showed
.,.. .s, Office o. state Commissioner Of
rs...,,or was vacant at the time the
,..o- vas brought.
81. ~srer vu ask permission Of the
,-,lr,te Division 60 take his case 10 the
can, u sr9cals. and, failing in that. he
81 s.tru h.s complaint 10 the State
o.---.ss .ore~. 10 the latter holds against
~. re.,ot,o the suggestion OF the APP
,,,.,e Division will have been complied
,4 and tne case Will be brought over
.,,.- .r ths Supreme Court.
s.s6es. the Appellate Division said
-, Mrs. Pe.xotto stated as her reason
T.. ssr absence that she was suffering
Err M affection Of the ears and nose
o,s-sd for Mrs PelXotto asked the
ot 20 discern from the report Of the
~-n.uee recommending her dismissal
RI, uhue she was dismissed on the
as-ss % neglect OF d4ty. the dismissal
~, ir reality due TO hcr absence 10 bear
d cid
The alacr ~ this argument, said
a. so-rl "hes in the fact that. even
ao.sh she could not be removed for Civ
rs birth io a child. it's possible that the
s-sa % hey absence for that purpose
rst, BE- such as 90 authorize her removal
,r us.ect of duty. Notwithstanding the
as tat such neglect could be predi-
.s,el .Jon the birth Of the child.
IL court held that the question with
rrsa TO Tie tight Of the Board OF Edu-
.ut,a 10 remove a teacher for necessary
iss.ies owing 20 such illness was not
presented for decision and that II would
ia BE- proper 10 express an opinion on
ea, csestion az this time
0a the other hand. the court held that
rs legislature has given the Board Of
ns,stion POWER 20 MAKE its bylaws for
Nt sQFfltlIE on lil' S-Ib'iS anu bHAl
as.s rules were followed in the dismissal
q Nt PeiXottO.
Mrs Peixotto vas teacher-in-charge Of
f-s.ic school a.. in The Bronx, with
IA, o. 8 500 She was dismissed in
October by the board. after being tried
~ neglect % duty in June. Charges
sge made aea.nst her in April, two
weeks after "a daughter was born. which
gtdfed neglect Of duty and absence
stho1i leave 20 bear q child
Alfred Taley. Der lawyer. obtained an
rasr from Justice Newburger In october
citciinr tho board % show cause why
',s should not be re!nstated. and Justice
sssbsry later issued tho mandamus. EN-
r1ucn o. The writ was STAYED pending
re appea' 20 the Appellate Division.
The whole question is whether the
bard 81 Education can have powers
T'tn ii by law which prevent an enploye
'om having redress in the courts. said
L. Tauev