The star-progress. (Opelousas, La.) 1917-1921, 1921-06-22

40 So SHAH AOS DC LAcu anu dASCtlaA 81
ed for malfeasance or neglect of duty
or any other cause, except by a board
composed Of two-ihirds OF the mem.
bers present.
"Be it further ordained that, in or
der to have two-thirds of the board
present to try such sases, the mem
bers present shall compel the attend
ance of absent members md may i'm
pose a fine Of $1,000 upon the absent
notified members and compel their
attendance by sending The town mar
shall to arrest the absentess, and try
them before the board.
J Section Two adopted by the fol
lowing yea and nay vote, to-wit:
Against: Estorge For adoption: San
doz, Chachere, Norman. Saizan,
Boagni and Lareade."
1t appears that the city attorney
also advised the mayor and the board
of aldermen that the ordinance pro-
viding an exclusive method for dis
charging employees of the city could
not be repealed or suspended by mere
resolution. But the aldermen who
had introduced the resolution insisted
upon its being put to vote. The re-
suit was tie vote, two aldermen vot-
Jig for and two against the adoption
of the resolution; whereupon the may
or cast the deciding vote in favor OF
the resolution. The alderman who had
introduced the resolution then offer
ed the following resolution, viz:
Resolved that George c. Jordan,
superintendent of the city's power
plant, be, and he is hereby, dismissed
and discharged for good and sufficient
4 causes, among others, for insubordina-
ton and for assaulting the mayor
while the latter was in the discharge
of his official duties.
Resolved further that the mayor
and power house committee be, and
they are hereby, authorized to take
charge of said power plant and to see
that it is operated to the best advant.
age until a new superintendent be en-
ployed and qualified"
The vote on the resolution dis
charging the superintendent was the
same as on the resolution purportin2
to suspend the ordinance that stood If
the way. the mayor casting the decid
+ ing vote in favor Of the adoption o.
!. both resolutions.
On advice of his attorney, defend
ant refused to surrender his office o.
employment, claiming that the board
Of aldermen could not discharge hin
i without allowing him hearing, il
! conformity with the ordinance on tn
subject
# The theory on which the distrie
: court rendered judgment on the plead
!. ings and without hearing evidenc
+. was that defendants only recours
J. was to claim his salary for the unea
n pired portion of the term Of his en-
T. plovment. For that reason, it wa
stated in the judgment that it wa
"a rendered withut prejudice to the dt
6 PENDANTS right; if any he had to su
"a for the salary for the unexpirs1 par
If of his term Of employment. The cour
n had reference to Article 2749 Of tn
n Civil Code, viz:
10 "If. without any serious ground c
n complaint, man should send ava
70 a Iaborer whose services he has hire
- for a certain time, before that tim
y has expired, he shall be bound to pa
n to such laborer the whole Of the sa
i aries which he would have been el
: titled to receive, had the full term
w. his service arrived"
. An officer of a municipal corpor'
- ton is not to be regarded as labo
:, er. within the meaning Of Article. 244
.. Of the code. This suit, instituted b
: resolution of the mayor and board 9
. aldermen, is a quo warranto proceed
a ing. which according to Article 80
;. If the code of practice, is availaol
i only against person who claims
a or psurps an office in a corporation
Nv me method Of his proceeding, there
fore the relator has assumed that de
PENDANT was not an ordinary employees
: Int an officer of the corporation. Il
would not affect our judgment IN
this case, however, if we should as
sume that defendant was an ordinary
emnlovee and not an officer or the
/. cornoration. 1t is admitted that ne
was not given hearing on the accuse
tion of characterization and OF assault
ing the mayor, for which he was dis
charged. However reprehensible his
conduct may have been in the estina-
fion of the mayor and the two mem
hers of the board of aldermen who
voted to discharge him, the ordinance
On the subject of discharging employ
ees gave him the right to hearing
and an opportunity to defend himself
against the accusation. The mayor
and hoard Of aldermen realized that
+he superintandent of the electric
they could not per-emptorily discharge
light and waterworks plant while the
f. 4 a11rrlsr