Inhabitants of Searsmont v. Farwell

The superintending school committee have no power to dismiss a schoolmaster, unless for one of the causes mentioned in Stat. 1821, ck. 117, sec. 3; — and this must he by writing, under their hands, specially assigning the cause of dismissal.

In a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas, in a cause in which the plaintiffs in error were defendants, the case was thus;— The son of the original plaintiff, having obtained the testimonials required by the statute, was regularly employed as a schoolmaster, in one of the districts in Searsmont, for three months. During that period, a number of the inhabitants, becoming dissatisfied with him, addressed to the superintending school committee a petition for his discharge, alleging that for want of natural abilities, he was not qualified to instruct their school; which petition the committee sent to him, with a note, stating that incon-sequence of the petition, and because it was manifest to them that where much excitement and disaffection existed between the instructer and the parents of the scholars, but little benefit could result from a continuance of the school, they'were of opinion that he ought to be discharged, and accordingly discharged him from the school. He continued,' however, to instruct the school for another month, completing the term originally contracted for; and to recover pay for the service of the last month this action was brought, the two former months having been paid for. At the trial in the Court below, the defendants offered the depositions of divers inhabitants of the district to prove the incapacity and cruelty of the plaintiff’s son, as well as the disaffection against him; — but this evidence was rejected by Whitman C. J. before whom the cause was tried; and he instructed the jury that, the order of discharge given by the committee, not containing any express adjudication respecting the fitness or unfitness of the in-structer, was not sufficient to dissolve the contract. To which the defendants excepted. contended that the committee were not bound to render any reasons for the dismissal of a schoolmaster; the law having made the contract subject to their discretion. The sole object of the law is to provide for the education of youth; and many cases may be supposed in which the continuance of an instructer, of sufficient learning, and of good morals, may be not only unprofitable, but destructive of the object sought; — as, if he be lax in discipline, or disgusting in his manners, &c. These cases must necessarily fall under their observation, it being made their duty to visit the schools; and of course the merits of the instructer are continually under a course of trial, and upon them the committee may adjudicate whenever they are satisfied, without a more formal notice or hearing. But if it is necessary that causes should be specially assigned for the dismissal of a schoolmaster, they are sufficiently apparent from the petition and certificate of discharge, taken together. The proceedings, under a statute so highly beneficial, ought, if possible, to be supported. lie contended further that without any adjudication by the committee, the town had a right, at the trial, to resist the plaintiff’s demand, by shewing him incapable to teach. For the contract on his part amounts to an undertaking that lie is able to do what he proposes, and if this is false, the contract is void. said it was as important to the community that schoolmasters be protected from unfounded popular caprice and disaffection, as that none but fit teachers be employed. And they argued that the powers granted to school committees were to be interpreted as all other limited powers, and, like them, to be strictly pursued. The committee might, upon proper application, summon the party before them, and after due hearing and examination, might for good cause dismiss him; but these proceedings ought to appear on the face of the order of dismissal. Rex v. Croke Cowp. 26.