Affirming.
Appellant, Mrs. Hapner, was a school teacher in Carlisle County, and had taught there for two years. After a hearing before the Carlisle County Board of Education, as provided in Section
On July 4, 1946, appellant was given notice by the Board that because of many complaints about her inefficiency and the failure of her methods of teaching a hearing would be held on August 5, 1946. Such hearing was duly called at the time prescribed, and both sides introduced a number of witnesses. Eighteen persons appeared and testified in substance that appellant was too old to teach (she being sixty-four years of age); that her methods of teaching were different from those which were used by other teachers and were not as satisfactory; that her manner of grading pupils resulted in the discouragement of said pupils; that a number of pupils had left the first school which she taught in this county because they could not get along well with her; that her pupils did not learn very much; and that on the whole she was inefficient and unsatisfactory as a teacher. To rebut this testimony, appellant made a lengthy statement to the Board, and called on her behalf several witnesses whose testimony, in a number of ways, conflicted with that of those who were attempting to oust her.
There was no expert testimony, and it is admitted that appellant held a teaching certificate and was generally qualified to teach in so far as her education was concerned. The Board decided unanimously to terminate appellant's contract. Upon appeal the Circuit Court adjudged: (1) the Board of Education was justified in entering the order discharging appellant, (2) *Page 860 said order be ratified and confirmed, and (3) contractual relations between appellant and the Board be severed as of August 5, 1946.
Section
The statute does not state what weight shall be given the finding of the Board on review. However, we believe the decision of the lower Court in the "original proceeding" must be accorded the same consideration as in other cases where the Court acts in place of a jury as the trier of the facts. The findings of the Court should be given the same weight as those of a properly instructed jury, and unless the decision is flagrantly or palpably against the evidence, we are not authorized to set it aside. Rybolt et al. v. Futrell et al.,
Appellant makes the point that her case had been prejudged by the Board before the hearing, but we are not convinced from the record that such a situation existed. While the testimony presented for both sides was not the very finest type of proof, we believe that appellant had a fair hearing by the Board, and that the Court, on the basis of the evidence heard, was justified in sustaining its order.
The judgment is affirmed. *Page 861