Sharps v. Jones, (C. C. No. 371.)

CourtSupreme Court of West Virginia
Writing for the CourtMILLER
Citation131 S.E. 463
PartiesSHARPS . v. JONES.
Docket Number(C. C. No. 371.)
Decision Date26 January 1926

131 S.E. 463

SHARPS .
v.
JONES.

(C. C. No. 371.)

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Jan. 26, 1926.


(Syllabus by the Court.)
[131 S.E. 464]
(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

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. Ruling sustained as to the first three charges, and demurrer held good as to the fourth charge.

Wm. T. George, of Philippi, for plaintiff.

D. D. Stemple, of Philippi, for defendant.

MILLER, J. 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 "cannot 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 "he 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 2S-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, incompetence, neglect of duty or gross immorality, in such manner as may be prescribed by general laws, " etc.

Section 7, chapter 7, of the Code, provides that:

"Any county or district officer including any member of a board of education may be removed from office for official misconduct, incompetency, habitual drunkenness, adultery, neglect of duty, or gross immorality."

The same section further provides that such removal shall be made by the circuit court of the county where such officer resides.

If true, would the fact that defendant is "hard of hearing'' render him incompetent to hold the office he now occupies? "Hard of hearing" is necessarily a relative term, and is applied to one who can not hear as well as a person possessing normal faculties of hearing, or does not hear as well as the average...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Schwartz v. County Court of Hancock County, No. 10416
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • December 11, 1951
    ...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. Filler, 47 W.......
  • State v. Scott, 1359
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 22, 1926
    ...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, they should be s......
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Williams, No. 36718.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 9, 1940
    ...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. Const.; State ex i......
  • Daugherty v. Day, No. 12049
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • September 20, 1960
    ...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. 463]. 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 allegat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Schwartz v. County Court of Hancock County, No. 10416
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • December 11, 1951
    ...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. Filler, 47 W.......
  • State v. Scott, 1359
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 22, 1926
    ...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, they should be s......
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Williams, No. 36718.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 9, 1940
    ...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. Const.; State ex i......
  • Daugherty v. Day, No. 12049
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • September 20, 1960
    ...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. 463]. 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 allegat......
  • 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