Bon Homme County v. McLouth

Citations

• 19 S.D. 555
• 104 N.W. 256
• 1905 S.D. LEXIS 78

Syllabus

<p>1. Under Rev. Pol. Code, §1806, providing that all elective county, township, and precinct officers may be charged, tried, and removed irom office for habitual or willful neglect of duty, one month’s absence from the state is not in itself a neglect of duty on the part of a county superintendent of schools.</p> <p>2. Nor was failure to leave some one in charge of his office during his absence, the law not providing for the appointment of a deputy or other person to perform the duties of superintendent during his absence or inability to act.</p> <p>3. The fact that no official duty was performed during such absence does not imply willful neglect, as there may have been no such duty to perform.</p> <p>4. A complaint in an action under said section to remove the superintendent from office, containing only a general allegation that, the defendant was guilty of willful neglect of duty, without stating the facts con^ stituting such neglect, is insufficient.</p> <p>5. The rule that, where a complaint is first attacked by an objection to evidence, it should be most liberally construed, can only be invoked where such an objection has been overruled, the action tried on its merits, and the imperfections of the pleading cured by proper proof.</p>