Injunction Halts High School Progress in 1915

(06/30/2002)

Transcribed by Norma Knotts Shaffer from microfilm of the Calhoun Chronicle dated 7/22/1915.

Injunction Served on Board

An injunction restraining the Board of Directors of the Calhoun County High School from acting in any manner whatsoever, was served Monday morning when the Board met here for the purpose of selecting a site.  The restraining order was granted by Judge W.H. O'Brien one day last week upon the bill in chancery exhibited by M.W. Hoskins, Coleman J. Gainer, former superintendent of free schools of this county, Dr. Guy Stalnaker, F.L. Haymaker and Ferrell Altizer, all of Arnoldsburg.

The grounds for the injunction which, of course, is only a temporary order, as alleged in the bill of the plaintiffs, are substantially as follows:

The plaintiffs allege and complain in their bill that the act creating the High School is unconstitutional and void for the following reasons:

First, because the title to said act does not embrace or express the object or objects thereof.

Second, while it attempts to provide a way and the manner whereby the first members of the board of directors of said High School may be elected, yet there is no provision whereby any of the future members of said board can be selected.

Third, because there are no restrictions on the board of how long it may lay a levy of fifteen cents for building purposes.

The bill of the plaintiffs goes on to allege that all the acts of the County Court in connection with the High School elections are void and without any affect for the following reasons:

First, because there was no law or authority in force or effect at the time directing the County Court to call and prepare for holding the election on June 10, 1915.

Second, because the order of the Court calling the election of June 10 does not provide for any proposition to be voted on, or the object of said election.

Third, because the County Court did not sit five days prior to said election to register and list the voters of said county.

Fourth, because no notice was posted or published as required by the act creating the High School, except the notices published in the Chronicle and the News, and that such publications are void because no order was ever entered directing said notice to be published after said act of Legislature became a law, and that said notices were not published four times after the time fixed by the constitution for said act to become effective and also because said notices give no information of what is to be done pursuant thereto.

Fifth, because the certificate of the Board of Canvassers does not certify whether or not the proposition had carried or been defeated.

Sixth, because the Board of Ballot Commissioners were not requested or directed to furnish ballots for the election held June 20, and that said commissioners did not furnish said ballots.

Seventh, because the special session of County Court called for June 16 was not legally convened and that all acts done by said Court on that date are illegal and void.

Eighth because the names of no persons were certified to the clerk of the Circuit Court to be placed upon the ballot to be voted on June 29.

Ninth, because the records do not show that said special session of the County Court was legally convened and because said Court did not register or list the persons entitled to vote.

Tenth, because said Court did not declare results of election held June 29, or certify who sere elected as members of the board of directors.

(Illegible) further charge that the ballots used at the election June 10 contained no information of the measure, principle or proposition to be voted upon.

Plaintiffs further complain and say that they are informed and believe that it is the intention of the board of directors to locate said High School at Grantsville, with the intention of making said school a local one, to be used for the sole and exclusive benefit of persons living in and near Grantsville at the expense of the whole county.

While may of the reasons for the injunction are undoubtedly flimsy, it is possible that there will be sufficient errors found in the act creating the high school and in the procedure of the County Court to cause the injunction to be perpetuated.  While the matter is before the court and until some final judgment is rendered it would be improper and unbecoming for the Chronicle to give any opinion upon the merits of the case.

Whether or not the board will ask for a hearing before the August term of court has not been decided, but it is probable that the matter will go over until then.  At any rate the levy for this year will not be laid and the erection of the High School will have to be postponed for another year at least.


Hur Herald ®from Sunny Cal
The information on these pages, to the extent the law allows, remains the exclusive property of Bob Weaver and The Hur Herald. information cannot be not be used in any type of commercial endeavor, or used on a web site without the express permission of the owner. ©Hur Herald Publishing, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017