Browne v. Gear

• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: REAVIS, J.
• Citation: Browne v. Gear, 21 Wash. 147, 57 P. 359 (Wash. 1899)
• Decision Date: 08 May 1899
• Parties: BROWNE, Superintendent, v. GEAR.

57 P. 359

21 Wash. 147

BROWNE, Superintendent, v. GEAR.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 8, 1899

Appeal from superior court, Pierce county; Thomas Carroll, Judge.

Proceeding before Frank J. Browne, superintendent of public instruction against Elizabeth C. Gear for revocation of certificates. There was an order revoking the certificates, and defendant obtained a writ of review from the superior court, and from a judgment for defendant said Frank J. Browne appeals. Affirmed.

Thomas M. Vance, for appellant.

John C Stallcup and J. W. A. Nichols, for respondent.

REAVIS J.

On the 19th of October, 1897, the state superintendent of public instruction notified the defendant that charges had been made in his office relating to irregularities on her part at a teachers' examination held at Tacoma in August, 1897, and the charges were specified as follows: 'Violation of rules prescribed by the state board of education for examination for common school certificates. Violation of rule 8: 'Applicants who are absent at the opening of the examination must not be admitted, except for the remaining subjects of the program.' Violation of rule 9 'Superintendents shall distribute questions on a given subject to all at the same time, and no recess shall be allowed until the subject is completed.' Also general charges: Submission to office of public instruction of papers which were not written during the period of the program prescribed by the state board of education, and attempt to secure a first-grade certificate contrary to the rules prescribed for such, as a matter of political favor. Statements contrary to fact, to the school directors and others, that a first-grade certificate had been issued to defendant by the superintendent of public instruction, such statements having been made with a definite knowledge that such an act would have been contrary to the law. Attempt to gain access to the questions prescribed for the examination that answers to questions might be prepared previous to the examination hour.' Defendant was notified that a hearing upon the charges would be had at the office of the county superintendent of Pierce county, in Tacoma, on the 10th of October, 1897, at which time evidence would be submitted, and it would then be determined whether sufficient cause existed to justify the revocation of the teacher's certificates held by defendant, for unprofessional conduct. Counsel for defendant appeared at the time mentioned, and there was a continuance by consent, and thereafter evidence was heard by the superintendent of public instruction, and he then adjudged, from the evidence given at the hearing, that the defendant had been guilty of unprofessional conduct; and two common school certificates held by defendant were revoked. Application was thereupon made by defendant to the superior court of Pierce county for a writ of review, which was granted, directing that the testimony and all official records of the proceedings before the superintendent of public instruction be certified to the court. In the meantime the superintendent was restrained from cancelling the certificates of the defendant, and thereafter, upon a trial, judgment was awarded in favor of the defendant, and the superintendent of instruction prohibited from canceling her certificates. From the judgment of the superior court, the superintendent of public instruction has appealed, and two errors are assigned here,--that the court had no power to review the facts where the process had apparently been regular, and that the court erred in adjudging that the facts did not show cause for the cancellation of the certificates.

Sections 5740 to 5751, inclusive, 2 Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St define the writ of certiorari or review. It may be granted by the court when an inferior tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions has exceeded the jurisdiction of such officer, or one acting illegally, or to correct an erroneous or void proceeding, or a proceeding not according to the course of the common law, and there is no appeal, nor, in the judgment of the court, any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. When a full return has been made, the court must hear the parties, or such of them as may attend for that purpose, and may thereupon give judgment, either affirming, annulling, or modifying the proceedings below. Under section 5749, supra, among the questions involving the merits to be determined by the court upon the hearing...