County Bd. of Ed. of Jones County v. Smith
| Decision Date | 13 June 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 41449,41449 |
| Citation | 239 Miss. 53,121 So.2d 139 |
| Parties | COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OF JONES COUNTY, Mississippi, v. Claude SMITH. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Beard, Pack & Ratcliff, Laurel, for appellant.
Lampkin Butts, Laurel, for appellee.
In 1957, when the County Board of Education of Jones County, acting under the statutes passed by the legislature at its 1953 extraordinary session, undertook a reorganization of the county school system, there were in existence thirty-odd districts for white children. A county-wide district, covering the entire area outside of the City of Laurel, was formed with sixteen white attendance centers. The school in the Sharon community was reduced from twelve to eight grades, necessitating the assignment of its seventy-three high school pupils elsewhere. Sandersville and Shady Grove Attendance Centers were available, the former being 4.8 miles distant in one direction, and the latter 5.6 miles in another direction. The county board assigned these pupils to Shady Grove. As a result of protests, the board transferred thirty-six of the pupils to Sandersville; and seventeen others showed up at that school without any transfer. However, subsequently the attendance of these pupils was approved by the board, and a total of fifty-three attended high school at Sandersville during the session of 1957-1958. Among this number was Claude Smith's seventeen year old daughter, Martha Mae, who completed the eleventh grade at that time. However the assignment for that session was effective for one year only.
As the 1958-1959 term approached, the board made it known that the Sharon high school pupils would be required to attend the Shady Grove Center for that session. The parents of thirty-one of these pupils again protested and filed a petition for a transfer to Sandersville. Thereafter the parents of twenty-two of these pupils sought a review, under Section 6334-03, Code of 1942, Recompiled. After a hearing, the board on September 17, 1958 refused to make the transfers. From that order, Claude Smith appealed to the circuit court.
In the petition which he filed in the circuit court, Claude Smith, as grounds for the transfer, made the following averments: (1) His daughter was subject to severe headaches when exposed to butane gas heat, and she would be spared much suffering if she was permitted to attend Sandersville because the buildings at Shady Grove were heated with butane gas while those at Sandersville were not so heated. (2) His daughter had completed the eleventh grade at Sandersville and had made the normal plans for graduating there in the 1958-1959 session. She had participated in the fund-raising campaign for the senior trip to be taken in the spring of 1959, but would forfeit the benefit thereof as the Shady Grove senior class does not take such a trip; she had purchased a class ring, the true meaning and purpose of which would be lost by transfer to another school; and she had been elected to, and had accepted, membership on the school annual staff, and she would be deprived of that honor if her transfer was denied. (3) The board had consistently granted transfers to other pupils throughout the county, and the denial of such to his daughter was arbitrary, unreasonable, and not in accord with treatment to others. (4) Some of the patrons of the Sharon community had been coolly received by the patrons and trustees of the Shady Grove Center whereas the relationship of the patrons and authorities of the Sandersville Center was cordial and friendly. (5) Sandersville was characterized as an 'A' school, while Shady Grove had a rating of 'B'. (6) Sandersville offered certain courses not available at Shady Grove. (7) Sandersville had more space both in its buildings and for playgrounds. (8) The distance of travel was approximately the same. (9) The board failed to consider the application of his daughter for a transfer upon an individual basis, as required by law, and did not consider her needs and welfare.
The evidence, offered before the board, was not taken down by a stenographer. The only papers in the transcript, if it can be called a transcript, were the board's order of assignment, and its order denying a transfer. The trial in the circuit court was completely de novo. Witnesses were called to the stand and testified, somewhat pro and con, as to conditions, and both as to why the minor should, and should not, be transferred to Sandersville. At the conclusion of the evidence, the court refused the board's requested peremptory instruction, and submitted an issue to the jury as to whether the order of denial should be set aside. The verdict of the jury was that 'the order of the county board should be set aside.' The board's motion for a new trial having been overruled, it appealed from the judgment which was entered in accordance with the verdict of the jury.
As to proposition (1), Smith and his daughter both testified that she was subject to severe headaches when exposed to butane gas heat. But there was no medical evidence to that effect. Obviously what they said was based on their opinions. It is common knowledge that there are many different causes for headaches, and the opinions of these none-experts, in a case such as this, does not rise above mere conjecture. The family used butane in the home on certain occasions. The buildings at Shady Grove and Sandersville were both heated with natural gas. The evidence of these two witnesses was wholly insufficient to create a reasonable belief that, if Martha Mae had gone to school at Shady Grove, she would have suffered from headaches as a result of exposure to the kind of heat there used.
As to proposition (2), insofar as the class ring for Sandersville was concerned, it was shown that the rings for both schools had been purchased from the same company, and that this ring could have been changed accordingly on request. Martha Mae's participation in the efforts to raise money for a senior trip and the denial to her of the honor of working on the annual staff were not sufficient to overturn the board's judgment in refusing to grant her a transfer.
As to proposition (3), the evidence showed conclusively that a lone-time 'swap' agreement had existed between the county board and the school authorities of the City of Laurel, and that transfers, in proper cases, were granted to Ellisville, where the junior college is located. Martha Mae lacked only one unit for graduation. Because she did not get a transfer, she refused to go to school at all. There was no evidence whatever to sustain the contention that the denial, in this instance, was arbitrary or unreasonable or not in accord with the treatment of other children in the county.
As to proposition (4), the alleged coolness to Smith and others at a PTA meeting at Shady Grove, if true, was of such a picayunish nature that it constituted no justification whatever to the board for granting this transfer from Shady Grove to Sandersville.
As to proposition (5), it is true that Smith testified that Superintendent Powell told him that Sandersville had an 'A' rating as compared to Shady Grove's rating of 'B'. But Powell denied this most positively and showed furthermore that all of the schools are in the same system; that if one school had been 'knocked down' to a 'B' rating, all of the schools would have been affected in the same manner; and that both Shady Grove and Sandersville had the same rating.
As to proposition (6), while it is true that both Smith and his daughter testified that they had heard that biology, which Martha Mae wished to study, would not be taught at Shady Grove, the evidence from those who had full knowledge as to the curriculum showed beyond question that this subject was taught in that school, and that, in fact, Shady Grove actually offered an additional subject, namely general science.
As to proposition (7), while...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellis v. State
...v. Tillman, 249 Miss. 141, 161 So.2d 604 (1964); County Board of Education of Jones County v. Smith, 239 Miss. 53, 114 So.2d 613, 121 So.2d 139 (1960); Ascher & Baxter v. Edward Moyse & Company, 101 Miss. 36, 57 So. 299 (1911); Evans v. State, 92 Miss. 34, 45 So. 706 (1907); Short v. State,......
-
Robertson v. Stroup, A-C
...Co. v. Tillman, 249 Miss. 141, 161 So.2d 604 (1964); County Bd. of Educ. of Jones County v. Smith, 239 Miss. 53, 58, 114 So.2d 613, 121 So.2d 139 (1960); Hassie Hunt Trust v. Proctor, 215 Miss. 84, 60 So.2d 551 We hold that the circuit judge's action in sustaining the plea in bar was correc......
-
PASCAGOULA MUN. SEPARATE SCHOOL DIST. v. Barton, 2000-CC-00035-SCT.
...the action of the school board was arbitrary or capricious, or was not supported by substantial evidence. County Bd. of Educ. v. Smith, 239 Miss. 53,63, 121 So.2d 139, 144 (1960). Similarly, the circuit court noted that it should not substitute its own judgment for that of the agency becaus......
-
City of Hazlehurst, In re, 42716
...v. City of Jackson, 229 Miss. 815, 92 So.2d 240, and County Board of Education, Jones County v. Smith, 239 Miss. 53, 114 So.2d 613, 121 So.2d 139; and certain statutes, as well as decisions from other jurisdictions, for the purpose of showing that school districts are agencies of the Sectio......