State ex rel. O'Connell v. Board of President And Directors of St. Louis Public Schools

• Decision Date: 15 November 1892
• Citation: 20 S.W. 484,112 Mo. 213
• Parties: The State ex rel. O'Connell v. Board of President and Directors of St. Louis Public Schools
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

20 S.W. 484

112 Mo. 213

The State ex rel. O'Connell v. Board of President and Directors of St. Louis Public Schools

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

November 15, 1892

Writ awarded.

C. H Krum for petitioner.

Charles Nagel and Phillips, Stewart & Cunningham for respondent.

OPINION

Prohibition.

Gantt P. J.

This is an original proceeding, commenced in this court, to obtain a writ of prohibition against the Board of President and Directors of the St. Louis Public Schools and the individual defendants constituting an election committee, appointed by said board to hear a certain contest for the office of director in said board.

The plaintiff alleges that he is a citizen of the city of St Louis, resident within the eighth school district as established by said school board, and that he is duly qualified by law to become and serve as a director in said board; that the said board is a public corporation, created by the laws of this state to manage, control, administer and regulate the system of public schools, within and for the city of St. Louis; that on the third of November, 1891, at said city in said eighth district, by order and authority of said board, an election was held for the office of school director for said district, and at said election plaintiff was duly elected to said office; that he received his certificate of election and thereupon became and now is the qualified and lawful incumbent of said office of director that the said office of director is a local office within the meaning of section 9, article 8, of the constitution of the state.

The petition further shows that, under rule 6 of the rules and regulations of said board, Thomas I. Burke, who was an opposing candidate for said office at said election, gave or attempted to give notice of a contest for said office, and that said board had appointed the other defendants an election committee to hear and report on the same; that said committee against the protest of plaintiff had assumed jurisdiction and had heard testimony from time to time until September 13, 1892; "that, on said last-mentioned date, the said committee reported to said board that the further hearing of the said contested election case had been laid over until September 29, 1892, at which time the said committee proposed to open the ballot boxes which contain the ballots cast by the voters in said school district, at the election at which plaintiff was elected as aforesaid; that no order of court has been obtained for the opening of said boxes by the said committee; that said report of said committee of its intention to open said ballot boxes was approved by said board, and that, unless restrained by the court, said defendants will proceed to open said ballot boxes and make public the ballots contained therein."

Upon this petition a citation to show cause was issued by one of the judges of this division, and the defendant Burke filed his separate answer, and all the other defendants except defendant Hickman filed a joint answer.

Defendant Burke in his answer denies all the allegations of the petition, asserts the power of the board to proceed as threatened, but does not assert that he was elected to said office.

The other defendants deny that this is a local office within the meaning of the constitution; deny that the proceeding in which they are engaged is an election contest or a matter of contested election, and aver that they are proceeding to an examination into the conduct of said election held November 31, 1891; that, by virtue of an act approved February 13, 1833, and an act approved March 30, 1887, the powers of said board are vested in the president and directors, who are given power to judge of the qualifications, elections and returns of its members; to prescribe the time, place and manner of conducting elections of members of said board and generally to make rules for their own government and the management of said schools. They then set forth at length their rules governing elections and election contests.

Their answer admits that upon the face of the returns of said election plaintiff received nine hundred and twenty-nine votes, Alexander Shumate four hundred and fifty-three, Thomas I. Burke nine hundred and twenty-one and Louis Hild, one hundred and eighty votes; the president of the board stated to the board that it appeared that plaintiff had been elected director, and that thereafter he satisfactorily answered all the questions required by the rules and propounded by the president, and that the oath of office was duly administered to him, and he took his seat as a member of said board. They do not deny that they intend to open the ballot boxes, as charged in the petition, but assert they are proceeding under their charter rights to do so.

Upon these pleadings a stipulation was filed that if a writ issued it should be confined to prohibiting defendants from opening the ballot boxes and making public the ballots, and therefore, plaintiff moved for judgment upon the pleadings, for the reason that, if said contest...