Riggs v. Green

• Citation: 84 A. 343,118 Md. 218
• Parties: RIGGS et al., Board of School Com'rs, v. GREEN.
• Decision Date: 10 May 1912
• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland

84 A. 343

118 Md. 218

RIGGS et al., Board of School Com'rs, v. GREEN.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

May 10, 1912

Appeal from Superior Court of Baltimore City; Thos. Ireland Elliott Judge.

Certiorari by Joseph E. Green against Lawrason Riggs and others constituting the the Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City, to review proceedings for the removal of plaintiff as teacher. From an order overruling a motion to quash the writ and striking out the order of the board dismissing plaintiff as teacher, defendants appeal. Dismissed.

Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, PEARCE, BURKE, THOMAS, URNER and STOCKBRIDGE, JJ.

Alexander Preston, for appellants. Thomas Mackenzie, for appellee.

BURKE J.

The following facts appearing in the record are all that need be stated in the consideration of the question presented by this appeal:

Joseph E. Green, the appellee, was a regularly appointed teacher in the public schools of Baltimore city, and was a member of the faculty of the Polytechnic Institute, in which he was a teacher of English, having charge of what was known as "X classes," which were composed of boys who had failed to pass satisfactory examinations, and in consequence thereof had been set back in their studies. These boys were dissatisfied, disposed to be unruly, and were somewhat difficult to manage. The appellee was a graduate of the Baltimore City College, had pursued a three-year course of study at the Johns Hopkins University, which had conferred upon him the degree of A. B. in English and Modern Languages and had been teaching in the Polytechnic Institute since September, 1909. Samuel M. North was the head of the department of English in that Institute, and in March, 1911, some difference of opinion and ill feeling developed between him and the appellee, growing out of the mayoralty primary election of that year. The circumstances which gave rise to these unpleasant relations, and the annoyances to which the appellee alleges he was subjected by Mr. North, and the difficulties which he alleges Mr. North threw in the way of the management of the classes under the appellee's charge, are fully detailed in the record.

On May 10, 1911, following his disagreement with Mr. North, the appellee tendered his resignation as an assistant in the department of English in the Baltimore Polytechnic Institute, and at a meeting of the board of school commissioners held on that day his resignation was accepted, to take effect June 30, 1911. On the 11th of June, 1911, Mr. Green wrote to the board, asking permission to withdraw his resignation, and setting forth fully the circumstances under which he was induced to resign his position. A copy of this letter appears in the record.

At a meeting of the board on June 15, 1911, its action in accepting Mr. Green's resignation was reconsidered, and his request for reopening the case was granted, and at the same meeting Mr. Van Sickle, the superintendent, was instructed to prefer charges against Mr. Green, which he immediately did, the specifications being as follows: "(1) He is inefficient in the management of his classes when under instruction. (2) He is inefficient in management when undertaking his share of the general discipline of the school. (3) He is inefficient in instruction, because the progress of the classes is impeded by his lack of control during recitation." On the following day Mr. Green was notified of the action of the board, a copy of the charges was mailed to him, and he was notified that the board had set Wednesday June 28, 1911, at 5 p.m., as the date for the trial of the charges, and that the trial would be held at the office of the board, Madison and Lafayette avenue. He was notified to appear at that time and place for trial, and to have present such witnesses in his behalf as he might desire. On the day set for the trial, Mr. Green filed an answer to the charges, in which he averred that he was entitled to know specifically what the charges made against him were intended to cover, so that a fair opportunity might be given him to reply thereto, but from the general and indefinite character of the charges he was at a loss to know how and in what particulars to defend himself. He proceeded to set up certain facts in refutation of the charges, and made an explanation of much of the unruly conduct of the boys composing his classes, charging that it was due in a great measure to the improper conduct of Mr. North. The concluding paragraph of the answer contained a bitter attack upon Mr. North. No replication was filed to this answer, and no denial of the allegations thereof appears in the record.

Before the answer had been filed, Mr. Green had retained Mr. Thomas Mackenzie as his counsel to represent him at the trial of the charges. On June 26, 1911, Mr. Mackenzie wrote to Gen. Riggs, the president of the school board, notifying him that he had been retained as counsel for Mr. Green, and asking that certain named persons in the employ of the school board be notified to be present at the hearing as witnesses. In reply to this letter, Gen. Riggs stated that he had been advised by the secretary of the board "that it had been the uniform custom of the board not to allow counsel to appear when charges are being considered by the board. If the hearing takes place in open session, there can, of course, be no objection to your being present to confer with Mr. Green." The letter of Gen. Riggs was dated the 27th of June, and on the following day, being the day set for the hearing, the petition for the writ of certiorari was filed.

The petition, after setting forth many of the facts hereinbefore stated, made the following allegations: "Your petitioner further shows that he is to be tried upon the said charges of inefficiency before the board of school commissioners on June 28, 1911, at 5 o'clock p. m., as will appear from the letter from the secretary of the said board hereto attached. Your petitioner shows: That under the law governing the board of school commissioners your petitioner, having been regularly appointed as a regular teacher, cannot be removed by said board except after 'charges preferred and trial had.' The charges filed against your petitioner are very indefinite, and he is entitled to a more specific statement of the said charges. That the 'trial' to which the board intends to subject him is one which is not in accordance with the meaning and spirit of the law, for he shows that he has no means of forcing the attendance of any witnesses, many of whom are in the employ of the school board, and some have expressed a hesitation to attend and testify freely against any matter affecting said school board. Your petitioner further shows that he has applied to the said board for permission to be represented by counsel at the said 'trial,' and his said counsel has received from the said board a letter, hereto attached, from which it is clear that the said board does not intend to allow your petitioner to be represented by counsel." The prayer of the petition was that the court "will issue its writ of certiorari, directed to the said school board, commanding it to transmit to this court all the papers and proceedings in the matter hereinbefore stated, in order that the regularity of its proceedings may be inquired into, and that your petitioner may have such other and further relief as his case may require."

The writ...