D. C. Sharps v. S. E. Jones., (No. C. C. 371)

CourtSupreme Court of West Virginia
Writing for the CourtMILLER, J.
Citation100 W.Va. 662
Decision Date26 January 1926
Docket Number(No. C. C. 371)
PartiesD. C. Sharps v. S. E. Jones.

100 W.Va. 662

D. C. Sharps
v.
S. E. Jones.

(No. C. C. 371)

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted January 13, 1926.
Decided January 26, 1926.


[100 W.Va. 662]

1. Schools and School Districts Charge That One is "Hard of Hearing" Held Not Ground for Removal from Office of Member of Board of Education.

The mere charge that one is hard of hearing is not ground for his removal from public office, (p. 664).

(Officers, 29 Cvc. p. 1410: Schools and School Districts, 35 Cyc. p. 892.)

2. Same Law Prescribes no Educational Requirements for Member of Board of Education.

In this state no educational requirements are prescribed by law for one holding the office of a member of the board of education, (p. 664).

(Schools and School Districts, 35 Cyc. p. 883 [Anno].)

3. Officers* Charges for Removal of Public Officer Should be Sufficiently Explicit to Give Defendant Notice of What he is Required to Answer.

While charges for the removal of a public officer need not be set out in the strict form of an indictment, they should be sufficiently explicit to give the defendant notice of what he is required to answer and to enable him to make due preparation to contest and disprove the particular act or acts constituting the alleged offense charged against him. (p. 665).

(Officers, 29 Cyc. pp. 1413, 1414 [Anno].)

(Note: Parenthetical references by Editors, C. J. Cyc. Not part of syllabi.)

Case Certified from Circuit Court, Barbour County.

Petition by D. C. Sharps to remove S. E. Jones from office as a member of a board of education. After sustaining defendant's demurrer as to three charges of the petition, but overruling it as to the fourth charge, the trial court certifies its rulings.

Demurrer sustained.

Wm. T. George, for plaintiff. D. D. Stemple, for defendant.

[100 W.Va. 663]

Miller, Judge:

By petition to the circuit court the petitioner sought to have removed from office the defendant, a member of the board of education, on the general ground of incompetency, alleging further; (1) that defendant "is very hard of hearing;'' (2) that he "can not read writing;" (3) that he "does not consider the best interests of taxpayers and citizens of the district from which he was elected in transaction of public business as a member of said board of education, but considers only his own private interest in all such matters;" (4) that "be obtained from the Board of Education a contract for himself in the year 1924 in violation of law, while he was a member of said Board of Education and had said board to allow him in payment of the work under said contract, by an order upon the Building Fund of said Barker District, on October 25, 1924, and he cashed said order and obtained the money thereon." The circuit court sustained defendant's demurrer as to the first three charges of the petition, but overruled said demurrer as to the fourth charge, and has certified to this court the questions arising on said rulings.

Petitioner's counsel, in his brief filed on the hearing here, relies on section 12 of chapter 28-A of the Code, for the jurisdiction of the circuit court to remove defendant from office. This section, by its terms, relates only to members of the county court, board of education, or other body charged with the fiscal affairs of the county, school district, or other municipal subdivision of the state, in their official capacity, in laying levies and incurring indebtedness not authorized by law.

Section 6 of article 4 of the state constitution provides that: "All officers elected or appointed under this Constitution, may, unless in cases herein otherwise provided for, be removed from office for official misconduct, incompetency, neglect of duty, or gross immorality, in such manner as may be prescribed by general laws," etc. Section 7, Chapter 7 of the Code,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Schwartz v. County Court of Hancock County, No. 10416
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • December 11, 1951
    ...852; Rogers v. Board of Education, 125 W.Va. 579, 25 S.E.2d 537; County Court v. Nicely, 121 W.Va. 767, 6 S.E.2d 485; Sharps v. Jones, 100 W.Va. 662, 131 S.E. 463; Barbour v. County Court, 85 W.Va. 359, 101 S.E. 721; Hartigan v. Board of Regents, 49 W.Va. 14, 38 S.E. 698; Town of Davis v. F......
  • State v. Scott, 1359
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 22, 1926
    ...the sufficiency of a petition in this kind of an action we find well stated in a recent decision in West Virginia, Sharps v. Jones, 100 W.Va. 662, 131 S.E. 463. It is there said "While charges for the removal of a public officer need not be set out in the strict form of an indictment, ......
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Williams, No. 36718.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 9, 1940
    ...271 S.W. 665; Armstrong v. Civil Service Commrs., 243 Ky. 415, 48 S.W. (2d) 1055; Ridgway v. Fort Worth, 243 S.W. 740; Sharp v. Jones, 100 W. Va. 662, 131 S.E. 463. (a) The Missouri Constitution provides for the removal on the ground of malfeasance in office only. Sec. 10, Art. IX, Mo. Cons......
  • Daugherty v. Day, No. 12049
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • September 20, 1960
    ...and disprove the particular act or acts constituting the alleged offense charged against him.' Point 3, Syllabus, Sharps v. Jones, 100 W.Va. 662 [131 S.E. 2. 'The material allegations of a petition under Code, 6-6-7, going to the merits of the charges laid must be proved independent of the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Schwartz v. County Court of Hancock County, No. 10416
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • December 11, 1951
    ...852; Rogers v. Board of Education, 125 W.Va. 579, 25 S.E.2d 537; County Court v. Nicely, 121 W.Va. 767, 6 S.E.2d 485; Sharps v. Jones, 100 W.Va. 662, 131 S.E. 463; Barbour v. County Court, 85 W.Va. 359, 101 S.E. 721; Hartigan v. Board of Regents, 49 W.Va. 14, 38 S.E. 698; Town of Davis v. F......
  • State v. Scott, 1359
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 22, 1926
    ...the sufficiency of a petition in this kind of an action we find well stated in a recent decision in West Virginia, Sharps v. Jones, 100 W.Va. 662, 131 S.E. 463. It is there said "While charges for the removal of a public officer need not be set out in the strict form of an indictment, ......
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Williams, No. 36718.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 9, 1940
    ...271 S.W. 665; Armstrong v. Civil Service Commrs., 243 Ky. 415, 48 S.W. (2d) 1055; Ridgway v. Fort Worth, 243 S.W. 740; Sharp v. Jones, 100 W. Va. 662, 131 S.E. 463. (a) The Missouri Constitution provides for the removal on the ground of malfeasance in office only. Sec. 10, Art. IX, Mo. Cons......
  • Daugherty v. Day, No. 12049
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • September 20, 1960
    ...and disprove the particular act or acts constituting the alleged offense charged against him.' Point 3, Syllabus, Sharps v. Jones, 100 W.Va. 662 [131 S.E. 2. 'The material allegations of a petition under Code, 6-6-7, going to the merits of the charges laid must be proved independent of the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT