Martinsburgh, in the amount of his taxable property, a tax having been voted by the district. The reduction was allowed to the amount claimed, and the trustees proceeded to assess the tax, without giving the notice required by law.

By A. C. FLAGG, May 6, 1829. Trustees are to give notice as to assessments in two cases: 1st, when a reduction is claimed, and 2d, when the valuation cannot be ascertained from the assessment roll of the town. You ask, why give notice, if the man claiming a reduction gets all the relief he wants? I answer, because every taxable inhabitant of the district is relatively interested in such reduction. Taxation to be just must be equal. The town assessment is evidence that, as between the inhabitants of a district, the assessment is proportionably just. If you deduct from one, you leave such deduction to be paid by all the rest of the tax-payers of the district: they are entitled to notice, and an opportunity to show that, in justice to them, a reduction ought not to be made in the assessment of the person complaining. When no notice is required, the assessment may be made immediately after the meeting closes, for in this case it is to be observed, that the relative value of all the property has been adjusted by sworn assessors, and this assessment thus made out, is to be adhered to unless the taxable property cannot be ascertained from such assessment roll, or unless a reduction is claimed. As to the assessment roll and tax-list: In towns, the assessors make out the assessment roll; and the supervisors the tax-list, after the amount levied on the town is ascertained. In districts, the trustees know the amount to be collected before hand, and they do in this matter what is done by assessors and supervisors both, in town matters. They first settle the assessment, if there is any question about the town assessment, and then apportion or carry out the tax against each name. If there are ten persons in your district, and all the property for which they are taxed in the town lies within the bounds of the district, then the valuations are to be taken from the assessment roll of the town, (unless some person claims a reduction,) and the tax-list may be made out without notice or delay.

The Trustees of school district No. 19 in the town of Schoharie, ex parte.

If a minor is chosen clerk of a school district, and he officiates in that capacity, his acts, so far as the public and third persons are concerned, are valid.

At

In school district No. 19 in the town of Schoharie, a minor was chosen clerk at the annual meeting of the inhabitants. a subsequent time a tax was voted to build a school-house at a special meeting, the notices for which were given by the clerk.

Some of the inhabitants contended that the proceedings of the meeting were void, by reason of the non-age of the clerk, and the case was presented to the Superintendent for his decision.

By A. C. FLAGG, May 13, 1829. It is represented that in district No. 19, Schoharie, in which a tax has been voted and assessed for a school-house, some of the persons taxed object to paying, on the alleged ground that the clerk of the district was under age. It seems that he was chosen by the district, and allowed to officiate as clerk: his acts, so far as the rights of third persons and the public are concerned, are valid; and in this case particularly, the non-age of the clerk is wholly unimportant, as the question is between the trustees and collector on the one hand, and the taxable inhabitants on the other.*

Joseph Safford and others, inhabitants of school district No. 2 in the town of Ballston, against the Commissioners of Common Schools of said town.

The decisions of the Superintendent are final.

If a school district is established by a decision of the Superintendent, it cannot be dissolved by the commissioners of common schools.

The facts of this case are fully disclosed in the opinion of the Superintendent.

By A. C. FLAGG, May 16, 1829. In the case of the appeal of Joseph Safford and others from the decision of the commissioners of common schools of the town of Ballston, in dissolving district No. 2 and annexing the same to other districts, on the 12th day of April, 1828: It appears by the affidavit of Elisha Miller, a resident of said district No. 2, "that this division was unknown at the time it was made, to the deponent, and others aggrieved by the decision, as this deponent is informed and believes, and that the new arrangement is not satisfactory to the inhabitants of either as it now stands. That previous to this being done by the commissioners, some of the inhabitants of these different districts now concerned, were present on or about the last Tuesday of March, 1828, and objected to its being done, and the deponent supposed it was given up, until some months after the deponent heard of the division being made."

It appears also that notice of this appeal has been duly served on the commissioners of common schools, from whom no statement has been received in relation to the number of petition

* In the ease of Ring vs Grout, 7 Wendell, 341, the Supreme Court were of opinion that, although a collector of a school district ought to be a resident of the district, if the inhabitants "should confer the appointment on a non-resident, he would be an officer de facto, so that his official acts would not make him a trespasser.'

1

ers for the dissolution of district No. 2, or the reasons which influenced the decision complained of.

It does not appear from the annual reports for several years that districts Nos. 4, 8, 10 and 11 required the additions made to them by the breaking up of district No. 2; nor does it appear that district No. 2 was dissolved on account of any inability to support a school.

The appellants in this case ask for relief not only from the decision of the commissioners in 1828, but from a former decision of the Superintendent of Common Schools, made in 1823, in relation to districts 1, 2 and 11. As the former decision of the Superintendent is thus brought under consideration, it becomes necessary to inquire and ascertain its bearing upon the controversy now under consideration.

That decision, which was recorded in the town clerk's book, August 21, 1823, describes minutely the boundaries of districts No. 1, 2 and 11, and declares that the "territory of district No. 2 shall remain a district to be called number two." This decision was made on an appeal under the 7th section of the amended school act of 1822, which section authorizing such appeal, declares the decision of the Superintendent to be final. If the question which came up before the commissioners in April, 1828, was the same question which agitated the same territory in 1823, and was then the subject of an appeal, and was decided by the Superintendent, what authority had the commissioners to interfere with a question thus decided, and which decision is declared by the law to be final? If the word final were construed to mean only that the question should not be carried up to a higher tribunal, it would not reach the main object for which the act of 1822 was passed; which was the establishment of a tribunal where on an appeal the controversies and litigations in districts should be finally settled and put at rest; and that the parties should not only be protected from the expense of an appeal to the courts, but that the districts should not be again harassed by the same question at another meeting of the commissioners. That such was the main object of the 7th section of the act of 1822, is evident from the language of the report in relation to said section, made by the Superintendent, viz., that this provision was required in order to enable him "to put an end to the controversies submitted to his decision."

The act of the commissioners of April 12, 1828, having relation to the same question which had previously been decided by the Superintendent, is, in my opinion, void and of no effect.

As to the question of restoring the old bounds of districts No. 1 and 2, inasmuch as that was acted upon and settled by a former Superintendent, five years since, under which decision

school-houses have been erected, and district arrangements entered into in reference to the bounds established by that decision, I do not think it is expedient to do more at this time than to declare void the order of the commissioners of April, 1828.

It is therefore decided, that the acts and doings of the commissioners of common schools of the town of Ballston, on the 12th day of April, 1828, in relation to the dissolution of district No. 2, and annexing the inhabitants of said district to districts No. 4, 8, 10 and 11, be and the same is hereby declared to be of no effect.

(ANONYMOUS.)

In making out a tax-list the names of the taxable inhabitants must be given. "The widow and heirs of A. B. deceased" is not a sufficient designation of the persons to be taxed.

By A. C. FLAGG, June 8, 1829. A tax made out against the "widow and heirs of A. B. deceased" is not a proper designation under the statute, which requires a list of the names. Supposing the property to be owned or possessed by the widow after the decease of her husband, the trustees, according to section 76, (as well as sub. 3 of 75,) should have assessed the property to her by name. By sec. 88, the warrant gives authority to collect "from every person in such tax-bill named, the sum therein set opposite to his name," &c.

The Inspectors of Common Schools of the town of Guilderland, ex parte.

Inspectors of common schools may refuse to give a teacher a certificate from their personal knowledge that his moral character is not good.

Inspectors may annul a certificate on account of the immoral character of the teacher, although he may perform all his duties in school properly.

This was an application to the Superintendent, from the inspectors of common schools of the town of Guilderland, for the opinion of the Superintendent upon two questions presented to him.

By A. C. FLAGG, June 8, 1829. In judging of the moral character of a teacher, the inspector can certainly act from his own knowledge; and if he knows that a person is not of good moral character, it is his duty to refuse to certify for him. The inspector certifies on his conscience, and although he cannot always know whether the candidate is of good moral character, yet he should not certify when he knows the contrary.

Your 2d question is, "can the inspectors annul a certificate, for immoral habits, provided the teacher performs all his official duties well during his school hours?" I answer, they can. The

moral character of the teacher is of the first importance, and if the inspectors have given a certificate to a person of bad habits from want of knowledge of his real character, they ought to correct the evil as soon as it is discovered. The teacher offers himself as one qualified according to law, and if his moral character is not good, he is an impostor, and his certificate ought to be annulled.

The Trustees of school district No. 3 in the town of China, ex parte.

A school-house built by subscription may, if under the control of the trustees, be kept in repair by a tax on the property of the district.

In the year 1827, a school-house was built by subscription in school district No. 3 in the town of China, and had been constantly occupied as a district school-house. In April, 1829, a tax was voted for the purpose of repairing it; doubts having arisen as to the legality of the tax, the trustees made application to the Superintendent for his direction in the case.

By A. C. FLAGG, July 15, 1829. If the house in your district has been voted as the district school-house, and if it is occupied without interruption as such, and is under the control of the trustees for that purpose, I can see no impropriety in collecting a tax for its repair. If it has been built by voluntary subscription, the district can at least afford to keep it in repair by a tax. If however it is so far under the control of individuals that they can prevent the trustees from using it, it would not be prudent for them to repair it.

(ANONYMOUS.)

All children residing in a school district may of right attend the district school. If a warrrant to collect a tax is renewed, the collector in office at the time of such renewal must execute it.

All children attending the district school must be charged at the same rate for tuition, without regard to the studies pursued by them.

If a parent is not wholly exempted by the trustees, he must be charged the full price of tuition.

The following questions were presented for the decision of the Superintendent:

1st. Can the trustees refuse admittance to any child in the district?

2d. Can they renew the warrant to the old collector, and collect dues of last year?

3d. Have they a legal right to make a difference in tuition between scholars studying different branches?

4th. Can they charge different sums for studying the same