Putnam patriot., 1925-02-27

Judge William M Maltbie of the Synerior Court has decided in favor of the defendants in the case of Ed u,ard J Keegan vs. the Town of Thompson ct al. The decision is of sfatewide interest and is of so import anf A nature to every town in the state that in all probability it will be taken on appeal to the Supreme Court of Er- TOTS.
 The action was one brought to en- join the town from paying members of its school committee and also to recov- CT damages from E. II. Corttis and other members for pay that they had received in past years.
 The plaintiff in effect claimed that the action of the town in paying mem- bers of the school board was ultra wires and also that the bills so paid were not approved by the town school committee.
 The case was submitted on an agreed statement of facts. Briefs were filed and Judge Maltbie returned a memor- andum of length in which be found that towns had power by proper vote Co pay it's school committeeman.
 The vote of the town under which recent payments were made was that the town school committee be paid "as heretofore" Judge Maltbie requested evidence as to what 'as heretofore meant This was submitted at a ses- sion of the court in Willimantic.
 Having found that towns had suffi- eient legal authority to vote to pay members of the school committee, the courts whole consideration was een- tered on whether or not a sufficient vote had been passed authorizing the town 10 SO pay them. Judge Maltbie in the following memorandum of de- risi0n finds that the vote was a con tinuing one and sufficient authoriza- ton for payment. and therefore finds for Che defendants.
 Memorandum of Decision
 \ portion of the plaintiffs memo, now presented is an attack upon the conclusions stated by the court in it's own earlier memo, but 1t has not led the court to feel within itself a con viction of error. The practice as to the payment of members of the com mittee after 1915, spoken of as sup porting a construction of the vote of 1915 which would give it a continuing effect, perhaps was not as general as the court had inferred; the evidence offered at the second hearing deals only with the years 1920, when two of the nine members put in bills; 1921 when the number, if any, who put in bills is not stated, and 1923, when four members put in bills; what was the situation in other years is not in evi- denee; and, while it is possible that the court might take judicial notice of the town reports of those years, it is hardly incumbent upon it to. search out the necessary documents. How ever, if that element in the situation must be somewhat discussed, another now appears which more than takes it's place in the scale, and that consists of the circumstances under which the vote m question was passed In 1915 there was a change made in the sys- tenn by which the schools of the town were run, the town committee turning over to a supervisor certain of the functions it had heretofore been ex- ercising the question thereupon arose as to whether the members of the com. mittee were to continue to receive com. pensation as they had been doing, and at their request the matter was insert. cd m the call for the town meeting and the vote passed without discus