Douglas v. Campbell

• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Wood
• Citation: Douglas v. Campbell, 116 S.W. 211, 89 Ark. 254 (Ark. 1909)
• Decision Date: 08 February 1909
• Parties: DOUGLAS v. CAMPBELL et al.

116 S.W. 211

DOUGLAS v. CAMPBELL et al.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

February 8, 1909.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Randolph County; J. W. Meeks, Judge.

Action by J. H. Douglas against Jas. W. Campbell and others. From a judgment dismissing the complaint after sustaining a demurrer thereto, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The complaint, omitting caption, is as follows: "Said J. H. Douglas, for cause of action against said defendants James W. Campbell, J. C. Miller, Wesley Pressley, C. E. Pringle, E. Dalton, A. Z. Schnabaum, and Ben A. Brown, states that he is a citizen and resident taxpayer of the Pocahontas school district (special), which comprises and embraces the incorporated town of Pocahontas, Ark., both of which are corporations organized and existing under the laws of the state of Arkansas, and as such is legally entitled to all the benefits of the free public schools taught within the limits of said school district. That the defendant James W. Campbell is the teacher in the public school of said school district of Pocahontas, and is now engaged in teaching a term of free public school commencing January 1, 1907, and ending May 1, 1907, under contract with the directors of said district. That the defendants J. C. Miller, Wesley Pressley, C. E. Pringle, and E. Dalton are duly elected and qualified directors of said school district. That Ben A. Brown and A. Z. Schnabaum are also directors, duly qualified and acting, who are also made defendants herein. Plaintiff states that he is the lawful father of a son, Charley Douglas, a minor under the age of 21 years, and who is entitled to attend and receive instructions in the free public schools of said district, and has been in attendance until the beginning of the present term. Plaintiff states that on or about the ____ day of December, 1906, being one of the holidays, the above-named defendant and Ben A. Brown and A. Z. Schnabaum held a director's meeting in said town of Pocahontas, at which time the defendant James W. Campbell was at his own instance also present. Plaintiff states that at said meeting above defendants pretended to act within the scope of their authority as directors, being moved and instigated by the defendant Campbell, expelled and suspended plaintiff's son, Charley Douglas, from said school, and from further attendance upon said school for the term of 20 days from the beginning of the present term then and there by notifying him in writing, he being also present, that he should not be allowed to attend said school nor be allowed to be on the school grounds, or to associate with the pupils of the said school at said school or on the grounds thereof, stating as a reason for the said act that the said Charley was drunk and disorderly on the streets of said town during one of the holidays, viz., on Christmas day, 1906, which, if true, was a violation of the ordinance of said town — all of which is untrue, and which the said Campbell and the other defendants knew to be untrue, and that the action of the said defendants, maliciously prompted and instigated by the said Campbell, was but the carrying out of a conspiracy formed by and among said defendants to deprive plaintiff and his son of the benefits of said school, and to prevent his further attendance for said 20 days, and that the act of expulsion and suspension for said time was malicious as to all defendants, was a gross and flagrant abuse of their power and authority as directors aforesaid, and the effect of which was to deprive plaintiff of his legal, vested, and constitutional rights to have his said son attend and receive instructions at and in the free public school of said town. But plaintiff states that, if it is true that his son was drunk and disorderly as charged, that it was in no violation of rules of said school, did not occur at or in the school or about the school grounds, and that the alleged offense was not such as to deprive plaintiff legally of his rights and his said son of his rights to further attend the school; that by reason of said unlawful act of defendants plaintiff has been compelled to place his said son in another school beyond the limit of said school district, and beyond the home of plaintiff, and to engage and become liable for the board of his son at a cost of $75 for the term ending the last of May, 1907, and tuition in the sum of $20, for washing and laundrying $20, the purchase of new and different books necessary in the sum of $10, in the aggregate $125, to the damage of plaintiff in the sum of $125. For further cause of damage he states that the said act complained of was malicious and without cause; that the said charge was but a pretense for the justification of said act; that the same was maliciously instigated by the defendant Campbell, and so entered into by the other defendants, and that by reason thereof plaintiff has been deprived of the company and companionship of his only child, and further states that the effect...