Henry v. Coahoma County Board of Education Printed Record
Public Court Documents
March 24, 1964
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Henry v. Coahoma County Board of Education Printed Record, 1964. 2452abff-b79a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/ad49a597-208a-4af1-969b-a8102694dc14/henry-v-coahoma-county-board-of-education-printed-record. Accessed November 23, 2025.
Copied!
UNITED STATES
C O U R T OF A P P E A L S
FIFTH CIRCUIT.
No. 21,438
NOELLE M. HENRY,
Appellant,
versus
COAHOMA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL.,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Mississippi.
PRINTED RECORD.
INDEX.
Page
Complaint ........................................................................... 1
Motion for P relim inary Injunction ............................ 8
Notice of Motion ..................................................... 10
Answer to Motion for Prelim inary Injunction . . . . 11
A n sw e r ........................................................................ 12
In terrogatories ................................................................. 11
Objection to In terrogatories ....................................... 20
Notice of Objections ............................................. 22
Order w ith Respect to P arties , C. M. Allen and
Jam es F. Humber, J r ......................................... 22
Answer of Defendants C. M. Allen and Jam es F.
Humber, J r ............................................................... 23
Order w ith Respect to P arties , V an Davis and
S. H. Kyle ............................................................. 27
M em orandum Opinion and O rder ................... 28
P la in tiffs Exhibit 4, A nsw er to In terrogatories . . . 30
L e tte r da ted M ar. 16, 1964, to William H. M aynard
from Derrick A. Bell, J r ....................................... 35
P la in tiffs Suggested Corrections to be m ade in
Transcrip t of Testimony ................................... 36
L etter da ted M ar. 18, 1964, to Mrs. M elita Lentjes
from M aynard, F itzgerald & M a y n a rd ........ 40
Suggested Corrections to be m ade in Transcript
of Testimony ......................................................... 41
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS:
Evidence for the Plaintiff:
Testimony of Noelle Henry ......................... 52
C harles H. B a l l ...................... 81
G eraldine W hite .................... 96
Lillian Rogers Johnson . . . . 107
C harles H. Ball (Recalled) 122
Paul M. H unter (Adverse
W itness) ........................ 125
S. B. Wise ............................. 151
II
Page
Transcript of Proceedings, etc.— (Continued):
Evidence for the Defendant:
Testimony of P au l M. H unter .................... 157
D efendant’s Exhibit 1—Photostat of C ontract of
Employment ........................................................... 175
Photostat of Affidavit to M em bership of Or
ganization ............................................................... 176
D efendant’s Exhibit 2—M inutes of M ay 8, 1962 . . . . 177
D efendant’s Exhibit 3—M inutes of May 14, 1963 .. 186
Motion to Amend P leadings to Conform to the
Evidence ................................................................. 193
Opinion ............................................................................... 198
O rder overruling Motion to Amend Pleadings and
Dismissing Complaint, a t P la in tiff’s Cost .. 208
Notice of Appeal ............................................................. 209
Personal Bond on Appeal secured by cash deposit 210
Plain tiff’s Designation of Contents of Record on
Appeal ..................................................................... 210
D efendant’s Designation of Contents of Record . . 212
Motion to Extend Time for Filing Record and
Docketing Appeal .................................................. 213
O rder Extending Time for Filing Record and
Docketing Appeal ............................................... 214
Motion to fu rther Extend Time for Filing Record
and Docketing Appeal ..................................... 215
O rder to fu rth e r Extend Time for Filing Record
and Docketing Appeal ....................................... 216
Clerk’s C ertificate ......................................................... 217
INDEX—-(Continued):
COMPLAINT.
Filed Oct. 27, 1962.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, FOR
HE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF M ISSISSIPPI,
DELTA DIVISION.
Civil Action No. D-C-43-62.
N O ELLE M. HENRY,
versus
Plaintiff,
COAHOMA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a
public body corporate; PAUL HUNTER, Super
in tenden t, S. B. W ISE, P resid en t, VAN DAVIS,
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF M ISSISSIPPI,
Vice President, E. G. LARSON, GRAHAM BRAM-
LETT and S. H. KYLES, Members,
D efendants.
1.
The jurisd iction of th is Court is invoked p u rsuan t
to the provisions of Title 28, U nited S tates Code, Sec
tion 1343 (3), th is being a suit in equity authorized by
law, Title 42, U nited S ta tes Code, Section 1983, to be
commenced by any citizen of the U nited States or
other person w ithin the ju risd ic tion thereof to red ress
the deprivation, under color of s ta tu te , ordinance,
regulation, custom or usage of a S tate, of rights,
priv ileges and im m unities secured by the Constitution
and law s of the United S tates. The rights, privileges
and im m unities sought to be secured by th is action,
2
are righ ts, p riv ileges and im m unities secured by the
due process and equal pro tection clauses of the F o u r
teen th Am endm ent to the C onstitution of the U nited
S tates, as h e re in a fte r m ore fully appears.
2.
This is a proceeding for a prelim inary and perm a
nen t in junction enjoining the Coahom a County Board
of Education, its m em bers and its Superin tendent,
from refusing to re in s ta te the plain tiff Noelle H enry
to her position as a teach e r in the Coahoma County
School System because she and h er husband, Dr.
A aron H enry, engaged in certain activ ities p ro tec ted
by the U nited S ta tes Constitution, and to enjoin the
defendan t B oard from requ iring p lain tiff to file y early
affidavits listing all o rganizations to w hich she be
longs an d /o r reg u la rly contributes.
3.
The plaintiff in th is case is Noelle H enry, a Negro
citizen of the United States and the State of Missis
sippi, resid ing in the City of C larksdale, Coahoma
County, M ississippi. She is a school te ach e r w ith
six teen (16) y ears of teach ing experience in the public
schools of M ississippi. She holds a B achelor of Science
degree in e lem en ta ry education from Jackson S tate
College, Jackson, M ississippi, and has done g radua te
study at A tlan ta U niversity , A tlanta, Georgia. She
has taugh t at the McCloud Jun io r High School in the
defendant Board’s school system for eleven (11) years.
Since 1956, M rs. H enry, in addition to h e r reg u la r
teaching duties, sponsored the Tri-Hi-Y Club a t the
McCloud School, and was active w ith the Bov Scouts,
the R ed Cross and the P aren t-T eachers A ssociation.
3
4.
The defendan t in th is case is the Coahoma County
Board of E ducation, a public body co rpora te organized
and existing under the laws of the S tate of M ississippi,
Paul H unter, Superin tendent, S. B. Wise, P residen t,
Van D avis, Vice P residen t, E. G. Larson, G raham
B ram lett and S. H. Kyles, M em bers. The defendant
B oard m ain tains and generally superv ises the public
schools of Coahom a County, M ississippi, including
the h iring of teaching personnel. A cting p u rsu an t to
the d irection and au thority contained in the S ta te ’s
constitu tional provisions and s ta tu tes the board mem
bers a re officers and agents of the State of M issis
sippi enforcing and exercising s ta te law s and policies.
5.
D efendant B oard, acting under color of the au thority
vested in it by the law s of the State of M ississippi has
failed and refused to offer p lain tiff a con trac t to teach
in the Coahoma County schools for the 1962-63 school
y ear by reason of the civil righ ts activ ities and associ
ations designed to end racial d iscrim ination engaged
in by h er and h e r husband:
(a) P la in tiff is now and has for a long period
been an active dues-paying m em ber of the N ational
A ssociation for the A dvancem ent of Colored People
(NAACP), a national civil rights organization dedi
cated to ending all state-supported rac ial segregation,
including tha t in public schools. She has been active
in the local p rogram of the NAACP, and has pro
vided aid and assistance to h er husband, D r. A aron
E . H enry, who is P res id en t of the S ta te Conference
4
of NAACP B ranches in the S ta te of M ississippi. P la in
tiff’s husband in 1955 signed a petition sponsored by
the local C hapter of the NAACP, and add ressed to
the defendan t B oard w hich called for the desegrega
tion of the public schools in Coahoma (County, and
has frequen tly advocated desegregation of the public
schools in Coahoma County, which the defendan t
B oard then and now operates on a rac ia lly segregated
basis.
(b) E ach year since 1956, plaintiff, in compliance
w ith o rders from the defendan t B oard, has filed an
affidav it w ith said B oard listing all organizations of
w hich she is a mem ber. This affidav it is requ ired by
the defendant Board in compliance w ith § 6282-41,
Miss. Code Annot. and prohib its the em ploym ent by
the defendan t B oard of te ach e rs who fail to lis t the
names and addresses of all associations and organi
zations to w hich they belong or give dues or regu lar
contributions.
(c) On M arch 21, 1962, the principal of the McCloud
Jun io r High School, C harles H. Ball, J r . , inform ed
p lain tiff th a t he w as recom m ending to the defendan t
B oard th a t she be continued in h e r position for the
ensuing year.
(d) On June 4, 1962, the Supervisor of Negro Schools
M rs. G erald ine W hite, in form ed plaintiff th a t the
Board had disapproved the recom m endation of Mr.
Ball and h erse lf th a t p la in tiff be re ta in ed for the
coming school year. No reason w as given for th is
re fu sa l although plaintiff alleges on inform ation and
belief th a t the defendant B oard acted because of h er
and h e r husband’s continued activ ity to achieve de
segregation of schools and other public facilities.
5
(e) On June 28, 1962, p lain tiff m et w ith defendant
School S uperin tendent P au l H unter who reported
th a t he did not know why the B oard had refused to
renew p la in tiffs contract, and s ta ted th a t the B oard
did not have to give p lain tiff a reason . P laintiff
then requested a conference w ith the defendan t B oard
and w as told to request such conference in a le tte r.
(f) On Ju ly 12, 1962, p lain tiff w as inform ed by
Superin tendent H unter th a t the Board had received
her le tte r requesting a conference and had denied
such request because its decision w as final.
(g) On A ugust 31, 1962, p lain tiff w rote Superin
tenden t of Schools H unter, again asked him why her
con tract h ad not been renew ed, and requested anew
a conference w ith the defendant Board.
(h) On Septem ber 12, 1962, p lain tiff received a
le tte r from the B oard refusing her req u est for a
hearing.
6.
To p la in tiff’s knowledge and belief the defendant
B oard h a s no p rescribed procedure to review its
refusal to renew teacher contracts and th e re a re no
provisions in M ississippi for te ach e r tenure . However,
teach e r d ism issals a re in frequen t and persons who
a re dism issed norm ally a re inform ed of the reason
for such dism issal. M ore frequently , a teach e r whose
perform ance is below s tan d a rd in one school is m oved
to another school.
6
D efendant B oard to replace p lain tiff for the cu r
re n t 1962-63 school y ear, h ired one new teach e r who
has educational and experience qualifications fa r
in ferio r to h er own.
7.
8.
P la in tif fs teaching record in the defendant B oard ’s
schools has been excellent, and the B oard’s decision
not to renew h e r contract w as based solely on her
continuing activ ity and th a t of her husband in behalf
of desegregation of the defendan t B oard’s schools
and other public facilities; d ism issal for such reasons
w as in accordance w ith the law s, policy, custom,
practice, and usage of defendan t B oard and in vio
lation of p la in tiff’s righ ts under the F ou rteen th
Amendment to the U nited S tates Constitution.
9.
As a resu lt of defendant Board’s action, p lain tiff
has been unable to obtain employment as a school
teach e r and has suffered and will continue to suffer
irrep arab le loss, in ju ry and h a rm . She has no plain,,
adequate or complete rem edy to red ress these w rongs
other th an th is suit for injunctive relief. Any other
re lief would be a ttended by such uncertain ties and
delays as to deny substan tia l relief, and would cause
p lain tiff fu rth er irrep a rab le in ju ry and occasion dam
age, vexation and inconvenience.
7
1. The Court advance th is cause on the docket and
order a speedy hearin g thereof and, upon such h e a r
ing, to:
2. E n te r a p re lim in ary and perm anent injunction
requ iring the defendan t B oard, its agents, employees,
successors, and those acting in concert w ith them to
offer p la in tiff a teach ing contract in the Coahoma
County public schools and to continue such contrac
tual basis w ithout reg ard to plaintiff’s constitu tion
ally pro tected activities in behalf of, Civil rights gen
era lly and the desegregation of the public schools
in particu lar.
3. Enjoin the enforcem ent by the defendan t B oard
of §6282-41 to 6282-45, Miss. Code Annot. requiring
plain tiff to file an affidav it containing the nam es
and ad d resses of all organizations to which she be
longs or contributes regularly.
4. Allow p lain tiff h er costs h ere in and such fu rther,
o ther additional re lief as m ay appear to th is Court
to be equitable and just.
R. JESS BROWN,
(R. Je ss B row n),
1105%, W ashington Street,
V icksburg, M ississippi.
JACK G R EEN B ER G ,
CONSTANCE BAKER
MOTLEY,
D ERRICK A. BELL, JR .,
A ttorneys for Plaintiff.
10 Colum bus Circle,
New Y ork 19, New York.
W herefore, plaintiff respectfully prays tha t:
8
MOTION FO R PRELIM IN A RY INJUNCTION.
Filed Oct. 27, 1962.
(Title Om itted.)
P la in tiff m oves the C ourt for a p re lim inary in junc
tion enjoining the defendant Coahoma County Board
of Education, its agents, employees, successors, and
those acting in concert w ith them from refusing, to
offer p lain tiff a teaching co n trac t in the Coahom a
County public schools and to continue such con tract
ual basis w ithout reg a rd to p la in tiffs constitutionally
p ro tec ted activities in behalf of civil righ ts; and
fu rth e r to enjoin the enforcem ent by the defendant
Board of §6282-41 to 6282-45, Miss. Code Annot. re
quiring p la in tiff to file an affidav it contain ing the
n am es and addresses of all organizations to w hich
she belongs or contributes regu larly , on the grounds
that:
1. U nless enjoined by th is Court, the defendan t
B oard will continue to refuse to offer p la in tiff a
teach ing con trac t for the cu rren t 1962-63 school y ear
and for all fu tu re school y ears because of activ ity
by plaintiff and p la in tiff’s husband in behalf of civil
righ ts for N egro citizens, all of w hich activ ity is
p ro tec ted by the U nited S ta tes Constitution from
in te rfe ren ce by the defendan t Board.
2. U nless enjoined by th is Court, the defendant
Board will as a p rerequ isite to offering plain tiff a
teach ing con tract requ ire th a t she complete an affi
davit as established by state law (§6282-41 to 6282-45,
Miss. Code Annot.) listing the n am es of all o rgani
9
zations to which she belongs or contributed money
regu larly , which requ irem ent, under decisions of
the United S ta tes Suprem e Court, is a violation of
p la in tiff’s constitutional rights.
3. No adm in istra tive p rocedure provided by the
defendant B oard or otherw ise is availab le to p la in
tiff, and her severa l requests for a hearin g or o ther
m eeting w ith the defendant Board have been uni
form ly denied by said Board.
4. U nless the defendan t B oard is enjoined by th is
Court, p la in tiff will suffer irrep a rab le in jury , loss,
and dam age, irrep a rab le even by final judgm ent
for p la in tiff who will have been deprived of h e r
position as a teach e r in the Coahoma County schools
for a full year.
5. The issuance of a prelim inary injunction h e re
in will not cause undue inconvenience or loss to the
defendan t Board, but will p reven t irrep a rab le in ju ry
to the plaintiff.
W herefore: Upon the verified complaint herein ,
plain tiff moves the Court for a p re lim in ary in junc
tion, as prayed for in said com plaint and on the
grounds th e re in set forth .
R. JE S S BROWN,
(R. Jess Brow n),
1105 1/2 W ashington S treet,
V icksburg, M ississippi.
JACK GREENBERG,
CONSTANCE BAKER
MOTLEY,^
10
D ERRICK A. BELL, JR .,
A ttorneys for P lain tiff.
10 Columbus Circle,
New York 19, New York.
Notice of Motion.
P lease take notice th a t on the 12th day of November,
1962, or as soon th e re a f te r as counsel can be heard ,
p la in tiff h e re in will p re sen t to the Court the fore
going m otion for p re lim inary injunction, p u rsuan t
to the provisions of Rule '65, F ed e ra l R ules of Civil
P rocedure .
R. JESS BROWN,
(R. Je ss Brow n).
V erification.
S ta te of M ississippi,
County of Coahoma, ss.
Noelle M. H enry, being duly sworn, deposes and
says th a t she resides a t 636 P age Avenue, C larksdale ,
M ississippi, th a t she is the p lain tiff herein ; th a t she
has read the foregoing com plaint and knows the con
ten ts thereof and th a t the sam e a re tru e to the b est
of her knowledge and belief except as to the m atte rs
there in s ta ted to be alleged on inform ation and be
lief, and as to those m a tte rs she believes them to be
true .
MRS. NOELLE M. HENRY.
Sworn to before me th is 27 day of October, 1962.
R. L. DREW ,
(Seal) N otary Public.
My Commission Expires June 4, 1963.
11
ANSWER TO MOTION FOR PRELIM INARY
INJUNCTION.
F iled Dec. 12, 1962.
(Title O m itted.)
Come now the defendants, Coahom a County Board
of Education, P au l H unter, S. B. Wise, V an Davis,
E. G. Larson, G raham B ram lett and S. H. Kyle
(erroneously designated as S. H. K yles), and for
answ er to m otion for p relim inary injunction, say:
I .
D efendants deny that unless enjoined by th is Court
th a t defendan t B oard will refuse to offer p la in tiff a
te a c h e r’s con trac t for the cu rren t 1962-1963 school
year, and for all fu ture y ears , because of the ac
tiv ities by plain tiff and plaintiff’s husband in behalf
of civil righ ts for negro citizens, but s ta te th a t defend
ant B oard for adequate legal reasons does not con
tem plate offering plain tiff such a contract.
II.
In view of the allegations of P a rag rap h I of this
answ er, defendants do not consider it necessary to
answ er P a rag rap h 2 of m otion for prelim inary
injunction.
III.
D efendants s ta te th a t defendant Board, acting w ith
in its legal rights, has not given plaintiff any hearing ,
12
nor did it, nor does it, consider the sam e legally
necessary .
IV.
D efendants deny the allegations of P a ra g ra p h 4 of
the m otion for prelim inary injunction.
V.
D efendants deny the a llegations of P a rag rap h 5
of the m otion for p re lim inary injunction.
And now having answ ered, defendants aver th a t
p lain tiff is not en titled to the prelim inary injunction
prayed for.
WM. H. MAYNARD,
(Wm. H. M aynard),
GEO. F. MAYNARD, JR.,
(Geo. F. Maynard, Jr.),
Attorneys for Defendants.
S tevens Building,
C larksdale, M ississippi.
ANSWER.
F iled Dec. 12, 1962.
(Title Om itted.)
Come now the defendants, Coahoma County B oard
of Education, P au l H unter, S. B. W ise, V an Davis,
E. G. Larson, G raham B ram le tt and S. H. Kyle
13
(erroneously designated as S. H. Kyles) to answ er
the com plaint filed again st them by plaintiff, Noelle
M. H enry, and in answ ering say the following:
D efendants deny the tru th of the allegations con
ta ined in P a rag rap h 1 of the complaint.
IL
D efendants deny the tru th of the allegations con
ta ined in P a ra g ra p h 2 of the complaint.
III.
D efendants adm it tha t P a la in tiff has tau g h t in the,
McCloud Jun io r High School in the defendan t B oard’s
school system for eleven y ears , bu t a re w ithout knowl
edge or inform ation sufficient to form a belief as to
the other allegations contained in P a ra g ra p h 3 of
the complaint, and, therefo re , deny said allegations.
IV.
D efendants deny th a t Coahoma County B oard of
E ducation is a public body corpora te organized and
existing under the laws of the S tate of M ississippi,
but adm it th a t P au l H unter is S uperin tendent of
the Board of Education of Coahoma County, M is
sissippi, and th a t S. B. Wise, E. G. Larson, G raham
B ram lett and S. H. Kyle a re m em bers of the Board
of Education of Coahoma County, M ississippi, but
deny th a t V an D avis is a m em ber of said Board.
14
D efendants adm it tha t said Board of Education
m ain ta in s and generally superv ises the public school
of Coahoma County, M ississippi, but deny th a t this
au thority includes the au thority to h ire teacher p e r
sonnel except under the restric tions of s ta tu to ry p ro
visions of the S tate of M ississippi.
D efendants adm it th a t acting p u rsu an t to the di
rection and au thority contained in the State’s con
stitu tional provisions and s ta tu tes the B oard mem
bers a re officers and agen ts of the State of M ississippi
in enforcing and exercising said S ta te ’s law s p e r
ta in ing to th e ir jurisdiction, but deny th a t they a re
req u ired to enforce, or th a t they do n eceesarily en
force, any S ta te policies.
V.
D efendants adm it th a t defendant Board did not
offer p lain tiff a con trac t to teach in the Coahom a
County Schools for the 1962-1963 school year, b u t
deny th a t the reason for such fa ilu re and refusal
was because of the civil righ ts activ ities and associ
ations designed to end racial discrim ination engaged
in by her and her husband, but defendants allege th a t
such act w as in stric t accordance w ith the law s of the
S ta te of M ississippi and of the U nited S tates of A m er
ica.
D efendants adm it on inform ation and belief th a t
p la in tiff is now and has been for a long period an
active dues paying m em ber of the N ational Associ
ation for the A dvancem ent of Colored People (NAA-
and th a t p la in tiff has been active in the local p ro
gram of said association and has provided aid and
15
assis tan ce to h e r husband who is P res id en t of the
S ta te C onference of th a t association’s b ranches in the
S tate of M ississippi. None of the individual defend
an ts w ere connected w ith the Coahoma County School
D istric t in 1955 and a re w ithout knowledge or infor
m ation sufficient to form a belief as to w hether p la in
tiff’s husband in 1955 signed a petition w hich called
for the desegregation of the public schools of Coahoma
County, M ississippi.
D efendants deny th a t each y e a r since 1956 p lain
tiff, in com pliance w ith o rders from the defendan t
B oard, has filed an affidavit w ith said B oard listing
all organizations of w hich she is a m em ber, but adm it
th a t she has filed an affidav it each y ear since 1956'
in accordance w ith S tate law s listing certa in organi
zations of which she is a m ember.
D efendants a re w ithout knowledge of inform ation
sufficient to form a belief as to the tru th of the
allegations contained in sub-paragraphs (c) and (d)
of P a rag rap h 5 of the com plaint, and, therefore ,
deny each and every allegation contained therein .
D efendants deny th a t on June 28, 1962, defendant
P au l H unter repo rted to plain tiff tha t he did not
know why the defendant B oard had refused to renew
plaintiff’s contract, but adm it th a t he s ta ted th a t the
B oard did not have to give p lain tiff a reason.
D efendants adm it th a t p la in tiff requested a con
ference w ith defendan t B oard and w as told to re
quest such conference in a le tte r.
D efendants adm it the tru th of the allegations con
tained in sub-paragraphs (f), (g) and (h) of the
num bered P a ra g ra p h 5 of the complaint.
16
VI.
D efendants deny the tru th of the a llegations con
ta in ed in P a rag rap h 6 of the com plaint.
VII.
D efendants deny the tru th of the allegations con
ta ined in P a ra g ra p h 7 of the com plaint.
VIII.
D efendants deny the tru th of the allegations con
ta ined in P a rag rap h 8 of the com plaint.
IX.
D efendants deny the tru th of the allegations con
tained in P a ra g ra p h 9 of the com plaint.
And now hav ing answ ered such allegations of the
p lain tiff’s com plaint as defendants a re advised and
believe it is necessary to answ er, defendants deny
th a t p la in tiff is en titled to any of the re lief p rayed for
in P a rag rap h 1, 2, 3 and 4 of her p ray e r.
WM. H. MAYNARD,
(Wm. H. M aynard ),
GEO. F . MAYNARD, JR .,
(Geo. F . M aynard, J r . ) ,
A ttorneys F o r D efendants.
Stevens Building,
C larksdale, M ississippi.
17
INTERROGATORIES.
F iled Jan. 19, 1963.
(Title O m itted.)
To: W illiam H. M aynard, Esq.,
Stevens Building,
Clarksdale, Mississippi,
A ttorney for D efendants.
The plain tiff requests th a t the defendan t B oard
answ er under oath, in accordance w ith Rule 33 of
the F edera l R ules of (Civil P rocedure, the following
in terrogatories:
1. How m any Negro teachers w ere em ployed by
the Coahom a County School B oard for the 1962-63
school y ear?
2. W as each of these N egro te ach e rs requ ired
to complete the affidavit required by §6282-41, Miss.
Code Annot.?
3. Explain in step by step detail w hat review
and action is tak en by the B oard on the affidavits
required by §6282-41, Miss. Code Annot. after they
a re subm itted to the B oard by the teachers.
4. D uring the previous y ear, how m any Negro
teachers listed m em bership or contributions to the
N ational A ssociation for the A dvancem ent of Colored
People (NAACP) on the affidavits required by §6282-
41, Miss. Code Annot.?
18
5. Give the nam es of such teachers and the schools
to which they a re now assigned.
6. D uring the la s t five school y ears , how m any
N egro teachers have been re leased or not offered
new contracts because of personal m isconduct or
teach ing inadequacies?
7. Set forth the n a tu re of the teach e r m isconduct
or teaching inadequacy in each case.
8. Set fo rth the educational background and y ears
of teaching experience of each teach e r lis ted in r e
sponse to question 7.
9. How m any teach e rs lis ted in question 7 w ere
not offered new con trac ts by the B oard after receiving
recom m endations by the school p rincipal and su p er
visor th a t they be continued in th e ir positions for
the ensuing y ear?
10. Of the teach e rs listed in response to question
7, how m any w ere not advised by the B oard or a
school official why they w ere being re leased or not
offered a new contract?
11. Name the Negro teach ers o ther th an plaintiff
who taugh t during the 1961-62 school y ear in Coahoma
County and w ere w illing to teach during the ensuing
year, who w ere not offered con trac ts for the 1962-63
school year.
12. L ist the num ber, names, college degrees held,
and y ears of Coahoma County teach ing experience
of each teacher assigned to the McCloud Jun io r High
19
School during the 1962-63 school year, or to the school
or schools w here teach ing personnel form erly assigned
to the McCloud Jun ior High School w ere assigned for
the 1962-63 school y ear?
13. L ist the nam e, college degree held and teach
ing experience of the teach e r who replaced the p lain
tiff in the Coahom a County public schools?
14. L ist and explain the factors leading to the de
cision by the Coahom a County B oard of Education
not to offer p lain tiff a contract for the 1962-63 school'
year.
15. W here a N egro te ach e r is guilty of peronal m is
conduct or teaching inadequacy, is th e re procedure or
policy of w arning, discussion probation or otherw ise
before such te ach e r is re leased or refused a teaching
contract for the coming year?
16. A re such teachers offered the opportunity to
appear a t a hearing of any sort?
17. W as p lain tiff given any notice concerning the
unsuitability of h e r conduct, if any? If so, w hat?
18. W ere any proceedings held concerning h e r con
duct? If so, w hat?
19. Did the B oard have any inform ation concerning
personal m isconduct or teaching inadequacy of the
plaintiff w hich led to th e ir decision not to offer h er
a teach ing con tract for the 1962-63 school year?
20
20. L ist any other fac to rs or events o ther th an
personal m isconduct or teach ing inadequacies th a t
led the B oard to decide not to offer p la in tiff a teach
ing con tract for the 1962-63 school y ear?
P lease tak e notice th a t a copy of such answ ers
m ust be served upon the undersigned w ithin 15 days
a fte r the serv ice of these in te rroga to ries .
D ated: J a n u a ry 17, 1963.
D ERRICK A. BELL, JR .,
R. JESS BROWN,
125 1/2 N. F arish S treet,
Jackson, M ississippi.
JACK GREENBERG,
CONSTANCE BAKER
MOTLEY,
DERRICK A BELL, JR .,
A ttorneys for P lain tiff.
10 Columbus Circle,
New Y ork 19, New York.
OBJECTION TO INTERROGATORIES.
Filed Jan . 30, 1963.
(Title Omitted.)
iCome now the defendants, Coahoma County B oard
of Education, P au l H unter, S. B. Wise, V an D avis,
E. G. Larson, G raham B ram lett and S. H. Kyle
(erroneously designated as S. H. K yles), and object
to the in te rro g a to ries p resen ted to them in th is cause
21
by plaintiff, Noelle M. H enry, and for grounds for
such objection show here:
F irst: Service of said in te rriga to ries is p rem a tu re
for the reason th a t process ag a in s t all necessary and
indispensable p a rtie s to th is cause of action has not
been served. In th is connection defendants show th a t
C. M. Allen and Jam es F. Hum ber, J r . , two of the
p re sen t m em bers of the B oard of Education, the
said C. M. Allen succeeding Van Davis, and Jam es
F. Hum ber, J r . , succeeding E. G. Larson, a re nec
essa ry and indispensable p a rtie s to th is cause of
action, and tha t ne ither of said p a rtie s has been
m ade a party defendant to th is suit, nor served with,
any process, sum m ons or notice of the filing of said
suit.
D efendants fu rth er show th a t Van Davis, one of
the above defendants, w as not a m em ber of the
Board of Education a t the tim e of service of process
on him, nor has be since been a m em ber of said B oard
and is, therefore , im properly joined as a defendant in
this cause.
D efendants fu rth er show th a t E. G. Larson, one of
the above defendants, w as a m em ber of said Board
of Education at the time of the filing of this suit
and service of process, but w as not a m em ber of
said B oard a t the tim e of the serv ing of notice of
the above m entioned in terrogatories nor is he at
th is tim e a m em ber of said Board and is, therefore,
im properly joined as a defendant here.
22
Second: None of the in te rro g a to ries propounded
by p lain tiff a re re lev an t or p e rtin en t to the issues
involved in th is cause.
WM. H. MAYNARD,
(Wm. H. M aynard),
GEO. F . MAYNARD, JR .,
(Geo. F . M aynard, J r . ) ,
A ttorneys for D efendants.
Stevens Building,
C larksdale, M ississippi.
Notice of O bjections.
P lease Take Notice that a t the ea rlie s t p rac tica l
tim e convenient to th is Court, defendants will p re
sen t to the Court the foregoing Objection to In te rro g
a to ries pursuan t to the provisions of Rule 33, F ed e ra l
Rules of Civil P rocedure.
WM. H. MAYNARD,
(Wm. H. M aynard),
GEO. F. MAYNARD, JR .,
(Geo. F!. Maynard, Jr.).
ORDER WITH R E S P E C T TO PARTIES.
(Title O m itted.)
On application of plaintiff, it is
O rdered:
(1) C. M. Allen is added as a p a rty defendant.
(2) Jam e s F. H um ber, J r . is added as a p a rty
defendan t and is substitu ted for E. G. Larson.
(3) E. G. L arson is re leased and dropped as a
p a rty defendant.
This the 15th day of F eb ruary , 1963.
CLAUDE F. (CLAYTON,
(Claude F. C lay ton),
D is tric t Judge.
Ent. C. O. B. 2, p. 522, on Feb. 16, 1963.
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS C. M. ALLEN AND
JAMES F. HUM BER, JR .
F iled Mar. 26, 1963.
(Title O m itted.)
Come now the defendants, C. M. Allen and Jam e s F.
Hum ber, J r . , (h e re in a fte r called “defendan ts”), and
in answ er to the com plaint filed again st them by
plaintiff, Noelle M. H enry, answ ering the following:
I.
D efendants deny the tru th of the allegations con
ta ined in P a rag rap h I of the complaint.
II.
D efendants deny the tru th of the allegations con
ta ined in P a rag rap h 2 of the com plaint.
III.
D efendants admit tha t p lain tiff has taugh t in the
McCloud Jun io r High School in the defendant B oard’s
24
school system for eleven y ears, but a re w ithout
knowledge or inform ation sufficient to form a belief:
as to the o ther a llegations contained in P a ra g ra p h 3
of the com plaint, and, therefo re , deny said allega
tions.
IV.
D efendants deny th a t Coahoma County B oard of
E ducation is a public body corporate organized and
existing under the law s of the S tate of M ississippi,
but adm it th a t Paul H unter is S uperin tendent of
the Board of Education of Coahoma County, M issis
sippi, and th a t S. B. W ise, G raham B ram lett, S. H.
Kyle and defendants a re p resen tly m em bers of the
B oard of Education of Coahoma County, M ississippi,
bu t deny th a t E. G. L arson and Van D avis a re mem
bers of said B oard.
Defendan/ts adm it th a t said B oard of Education
m aintains and generally superv ises the public school
of Coahoma County, M ississippi, but deny th a t th is
au thority includes the au thority to h ire teacher p e r
sonnel except under the res tric tio n s of s ta tu to ry p ro
visions of the S tate of M ississippi.
D efendants adm it th a t acting p u rsu an t to the di
rection and au thority contained in the S ta te ’s con
stitu tional provisions and s ta tu tes , the B oard mem
b ers a re officers and agents of the S ta te of M ississippi
in enforcing and exercising said S ta te ’s law s p e r
tain ing to th e ir jurisdiction, but deny that they are
requ ired to enforce, or th a t they do n ecessarily en
force, and S ta te policies.
25
V.
D efendants adm it th a t defendant B oard did not
offer p lain tiff a con tract to teach in the Coahoma
County Schools for the 1962-1963 school year, b u t
deny th a t the reason for such failure and re fusa l w as
because of the civil righ ts activ ities and associations
designed to end rac ia l d iscrim ination engaged in by
h e r and h e r husband, bu t defendants allege that such
act w as in s tric t accordance w ith the law s of the S tate
if M ississippi and of the U nited S ta tes of A m erica.
D efendants adm it on inform ation and belief th a t
p lain tiff is now and h as been for a long period an
active dues paying m em ber of the N ational Asso
ciation for the A dvancem ent of Colored People
(N A A CP), and th a t p lain tiff has been active in the
local p rogram of said association and has provided
aid and assis tance to h e r husband who is P res id en t
of the State Conference of th a t association’s b ranches
in the S tate of M ississippi. None of the individual de
fendants w ere connected w ith the Coahoma County
School D istric t in 1955 and a re w ithout knowledge
or inform ation sufficient to form a belief as to w heth
er plain tifff’s husband in 1955 signed a petition which
called for the desegregation of the public schools of
Coahoma County, M ississippi.
D efendants deny that each y ear since 1956 p lain
tiff, in compliance w ith o rders from the defendant
Board, has filed an affidav it w ith said B oard lis t
ing all organizations of which she is a m em ber, but
adm it tha t she h as filed an affidavit each y e a r since
1956 in accordance w ith S tate law s listing certa in
organizations of which she is a m em ber.
26
D efendants a re w ithout knowledge or inform ation
sufficient to form a belief as to the tru th of the a l
legations contained in sub-paragraphs (c) and (d)
of P a rag rap h 5 of the com plaint, and, therefo re ,
deny each and every allegation contained there in .
D efendants deny th a t on June 28, 1962, defend
an t P au l H unter rep o rted to p la in tiff th a t he did
not know why the defendant B oard had refused
to renew p la in tiffs con tract, but adm it th a t he s ta ted
th a t the B oard did not have to give p lain tiff a reason.
D efendants adm it th a t p la in tiff requested a con
fe rence w ith defendan t B oard and w as to told to r e
quest such conference in a le tte r.
D efendants admit the tru th of the allegations con
ta ined in sub-paragraphs (f), (g) and (h) of the
num bered P a ra g ra p h 5 of the com plaint.
VI.
D efendants deny the tru th of the allegations con
ta ined in P a rag rap h 6 of the com plaint.
VII.
D efendants deny the tru th of the allegations con
ta ined in P a ra g ra p h 7 of the com plaint.
VIII.
D efendants deny the tru th of the allegations con
tained in P a ra g ra p h 8 of the complaint.
27
IX.
D efendants deny the tru th of the allegations con
ta ined in P a ra g ra p h 9 of the complaint.
And now having answ ered such allegations of the
p la in tiffs com plaint as defendants a re advised and
believe it is necessa ry to answ er, defendants deny
th a t p lain tiff is en titled to any of the re lie f prayed
for in P a ra g ra p h s 1, 2, 3 and 4 of h e r p ray er.
WM. H. MAYNARD,
(Wm. H. M aynard),
GEO. F. MAYNARD, JR .,
(Geo. F. M aynard, J r . ) ,
A ttorneys for D efendants.
Stevens Building,
C larksdale, M ississippi.
ORDER: WITH RESPECT TO PARTIES.
(Title Om itted.)
By agreem ent of counsel for p lain tiff and defend
ants, i t is ordered:
1. V an D avis is re leased and dropped as a party
defendant.
2. D efendant S. H. K yles, whose nam e is incor
rec tly spelled, be nam ed as a p a rty defendant as
S. H. Kyle.
This the 2d day of April, 1963.
CLAUDE F. CLAYTON,
D istrict Judge.
Ent. C. O. B. 2, p. 534, on April 3, 1963
28
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER.
(Title O m itted .)
This cause arose on a com plaint for injunctive
re lief against the defendan t Board, p raying th a t they
be req u ired to offer p la in tiff a teach e r’s contract-
in te rroga to ries w ere propounded to the B oard by
plaintiff, and the B oard m ade tim ely objection to
ce rta in of these in te rroga to ries . Subm ission of these
objections was m ade on m em orandum briefs by the
p a rtie s and they a re now for disposition by the Court.
The substance of defendan t’s objections is th a t the
m atters inquired of have no re levance or legal sig
nificance, and would be objectionable if introduced
into evidence upon the tr ia l of th is case on the m erits
This, how ever, is not the te s t for a p roper in te rro g a
tory . Rule 33 of the F e d e ra l R ules of Civil P rocedure
.s ta tes th a t “In te rro g a to ries m ay re la te to any m at
te rs w hich can be inquired into under Rule 26
(b) * * and Rule 26 (b) states “the deponent may
be exam ined regard ing any m atte r, not privileged,
w hich is re lev an t to the sub jec t m a tte r involved in
the pending action, w hether it re la tes to the claim
or defense of the exam ining p a rty or to the claim or
defense of any other party. * * * I t is not ground for
objection th a t the testim ony will be inadm issible
at the tr ia l if the testim ony sought appears reaso n
ably calcu la ted to lead to the discovery of adm is
sible ev idence.”
The answ ers to the in te rroga to ries , if e licited from
the defendant, can reasonab ly be calculated to p ro
vide the p lain tiff w ith inform ation w hich would lead
29
h er to discovery of the proof of her claim , if any
there be.
It is, therefo re ,
O rdered:
(1) T hat each and every objection of the defend
an t to the in te rroga to ries as propounded by p lain
tiff in th is cause shall be and is hereby overruled.
(2) T hat the defendant, the Coahoma County
B oard of Education, shall answ er each and every
in terroga to ry as propounded by p lain tiff w ithin fif
teen (15) dyas from the date of th is o rder in the
m anner p rescribed by the F e d e ra l R ules of Civil
P rocedure.
This the 6th day of June, 1963.
CLAUDE F. CLAYTON,
(Claude F . C layton),
D is tric t Judge.
E ntered C. O. B. 2, p. 543 on June 7, 1963.
30
PH F. EXH. # 4 ,
F iled Jun . 20, 1963.
In the U nited S tates D istric t Court for the N orthern
D istric t of M ississippi, D elta Division.
Noelle M. H enry, P lain tiff,
vs.
Coahoma County B oard of Education, a Public Body
C orporate; Paul H unter, Superin tenden t S. B.
Wise, P residen t, S. H. Kyle, C. M. Allen, J . F.
H um ber, J r . , and G raham B ram lett, M em bers,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. D-iC-43-62.
A nsw er to In te rrogato ries .
Now comes the defendan t B oard, and in answ er to
the in terroga to ries filed by p lain tiff in the above
cause, hereby answ ers the sam e in the num erical
o rder in which they w ere p resented:
A nsw er to In te rro g a to ry No. 1:
161 N egro teach e rs w ere em ployed by the Coahoma
County School B oard for the 1962-63 school year.
A nsw er to In te rrogato ry No. 2:
Yes.
A nsw er to In te rro g a to ry No. 3:
No review nor action is tak en by the B oard on the
affidavits requ ired by Section 6282-21 of the 1942 Code
31
of M ississippi, Recom piled, a fte r they a re subm itted
by the teachers. As a m a tte r of fact these affidavits
a re not subm itted to the B oard but only to the Super
in tenden t of Education.
A nsw er to In te rro g a to ry No. 4:
No Negro teachers, including the plaintiff, listed
m em bership or contributions to the N ational Asso
ciation for the A dvancem ent of Colored People on the
affidavits requ ired by said Section 6282-41.
A nsw er to In te rro g a to ry No. 5:
See the answ er to In terrogato ry No. 4 above.
Answer to In te rro g a to ry No. 6:
This B oard has kept no record of how m any N egro
teach e rs have been re leased or not offered new con
tra c ts because of personal m isconduct or teach ing
inadequacies during the la s t five school years, and
the m em bers of said Boafrd have no independent re c
ollection as to th is num ber.
A nsw er to In te rro g a to ry No. 7:
See answ er to In te rro g a to ry No. 6 above.
A nsw er to In terrogato ry No. 8:
See answ er to In te rrogato ry No. 6 above.
A nsw er to In te rrogato ry No. 9:
See answ er to In te rro g a to ry No. 6 above.
Answer to In te rrogato ry No. 10:
See answ er to In te rro g a to ry No. 6 above.
Answer to In te rro g a to ry No. 11:
Irm a Peyton
32
A nsw er to In te rro g a to ry No. 12:
C harles Ball, A-s license, 7 y ears experience; Wil
liam Gatewood, A-e license, 4 years experience;
D avid H arris , A-3 license, 3 y ears experience; G eor
gia R ichardson, A-e license, 0 y ea rs experience; E lla
Compton, A-e license, 27 y ears experience; Annye
D augherty , A-e license, 17 y ears experience; Em m a
J. Long, A-e, license, 28 years experience; Thelma
M elchor, A-e license, 22 years experience.
A nsw er to In te rrogato ry No. 13:
G eorgia R ichardson, A-e license, 0 y ears experi
ence.
A nsw er to In te rro g a to ry No. 14:
The Superin tendent of Education of Coahoma
County, M ississippi, did not recommend th a t the
Coahoma County B oard of E ducation offer p la in tiff
a contract for the 1962-63 scholastic y e a r and, ac
cordingly, said B oard w as in no legal position to
consider the offering of such con trac t to plaintiff.
A nsw er to In te rrogato ry No. 15:
There is no definite or set procedure or policy of
w arning, discussion, probation or otherw ise, before
a teach e r considered guilty of personal m isconduct
or teaching inadequacies is re leased or refused a
teaching co n trac t for the coming y ear. However,
before any action is tak en a thorough investigation is
m ade of said m isconduct or inadequacies by the
S uperin tendent of E ducation and w here considered
by him necessary , w arning is given.
A nsw er to In te rro g ato ry No. 16:
Such teach e rs a re offered the opportunity to ap p ea r
before the Superin tendent of Education, who is p e r
33
sonally charged by law w ith e ither recom m ending or
not recommending them, for employment, or re-em
ployment, as teach ers . As a m atter of fact, in the
p resen t instance plaintiff w as g ran ted a hearing by
said S uperin tendent of Education.
A nsw er to In te rrogato ry No. 17:
The B oard is inform ed th a t the Superin tendent of
Education, th rough the Supervisor, advised plain tiff
that he was not recommending her to the Board for
re-em ploym ent as a teach e r for the school year 1962-
63.
A nsw er to In te rro g ato ry No. 18;
No form al proceedings w ere held concerning the
conduct of the plaintiff, but she w as not recom m ended
by the Superin tendent of E ducation to the B oard
for re-em ploym ent as a teach e r for the scholastic
y ear 1962-63.
A nsw er to In terrogatory No. 19:
As previously sta ted , in answ er to In te rro g a to ry
No. 14, the Superintendent of Education did not re
com m end plain tiff for re-em ploym ent for the scho
lastic y ea r 1962-63 and thus the B oard w as in no legal
position to consider such re-em ploym ent.
A nsw er to In te rrogato ry No. 20:
See answ er to In te rro g a to ry No. 19 above.
S. H. KYLE,
(S. H. K yle),
S. B. WISE,
(S. B. W ise),
GRAHAM BRAMLETT,
(G raham B ram lejtt),
34
1
A ddress:
Stevens Building,
C larksdale, M ississippi,
S ta te of M ississippi,
County of Coahoma.
P ersona lly appeared before m e, the undersigned
au thority w ith in and for the S tate and County afore
said, S. H. Kyle, S. B. W ise, G raham B ram lett, J . F .
Humber, J r . , and C. M. Allen, m em bers of the D e
fendan t B oard in the above en titled cause, who on
oath depose and say: T hat they have read the in
te rro g a to ries served upon them by the plaintiff, and
the foregoing answ ers to those in terroga to ries a re
true according to th e ir b est knowledge, inform ation
and belief.
S. H. KYLE,
(S. H. K yle),
S, B. W ISE,
(S. B. W ise),
GRAHAM BRAM LETT,
(G rham B ram le tt),
J . F . HUM BER, JR .,
(J . F . H um ber, J r . ) ,
C. M. ALLEN,
(C. M. A llen).
J . F. HJJM BER, JR .,
(J . F. H um ber, J r . ) ,
C. M. ALLEN,
(C. M. A llen),
GEO. F. MAYNARD, JR .,
(Geo. F. M aynard , J r . ) ,
WM. H. MAYNARD,
(Wm. H. M aynard ),
A ttorneys for D efendant
B oard.
35
Sworn to and subscribed before me, on th is the 20th
day of June, 1963.
HALLIE MAE LOMBARD,
(Seal) N otary Public.
My Commission Expires Jan . 11, 1965.
F iled M ar. 19, 1964.
M arch 16, 1964
W illiam H. M aynard, Esq.,
M aynard, F itzG erald & M aynard,
D raw er 480,
C larksdale, M ississippi.
Re: Noelle M. H enry v. Coahoma County B oard of
Education, e t al.
D ear Mr. M aynard:
Enclosed please find an original and two copies of
plaintiff’s suggested corrections in the tra n sc r ip t for
your approval and forw arding to the Court.
I am also re tu rn in g to you the orig inal of the
corrections suggested by you w ith w hich we concur.
To save time, we would suggest th a t you subm it
the orig inals of both your corrections and ours to the
C lerk so th a t she can m ake the necessa ry corrections
to the original tran sc rip t. We a re w illing to accept
the co rrec ted tra n sc r ip t as the official one’ which
should obviate the need of searching out the Court
rep o rte r and asking her to sign a new certificate.
36
If you have any problem s w ith any of our co rrec
tions, do not hesita te to call me collect about them .
Sincerely,
DERRICK A. BELL, JR .,
(D errick A. Bell, J r . ) ,
Counsel for P laintiff.
DAB:gsb
Enc.
cc: Judge Claude F . Clayton,
Mr. Will S, W ells, A sst. A tty. Gen.,
IR:. Je ss Brown, Esq.
PLA IN TIFF’S SUGGESTED CORRECTIONS TO BE
MADE IN TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY.
Filed M ar. 19, 1964.
(Title O m itted .)
Counsel for p la in tiff have review ed and concur on
the lis t of suggested corrections in the tran scrip t
subm itted by a tto rneys for the defendant. In addition,
counsel for p la in tiff believe the following corrections
a re proper and should be m ade:
Page 6—Fourth question-Add “were” before final
w ord “th e re .”
Page 9—Second answer-Should read “Mr. Charles C.
P ag e 6—-Fourth question—Add “w ere” before final
w ord “th e re .”
37
Page 9—Second answer-—Should read “Mr. C harles
C. B all,” not “B alls”.
Sixth question—Should read “now, were there p er
sons,” not “w as there persons.”
P ag e 14—“D irection E xam ination” should read
“D irect E xam ination .”
Page 16—F ourth line—“ . . . we don’t chose” should
read “we don’t choose.”
Page 32—Fifth answ er—“desegregation the schools”
should read “desegregation of the schools.”
Page 39—F irst answer—“Lulu Elem entary Schools”
should read “Lulu E lem entary School.”
P ag e 46—Second question—“ . . . is th e r any
te ac h e r” should read “w as th e re any teacher.”
Page 47—Second s ta tem en t by Mr. Bell should
read “T hat is right. We w ant to know w hat happened
to the p lain tiff and also w hat happened to the ones
he did not recom m end.”
P ag e 50—F irs t answ er—W here it read s “th a t
ere a t” should read “that w ere a t .”
Page 51—Third question should read ; “In your
experience have any of your recom m endations ever
been questioned by the Superv isor?”
Page 52—Second answ er—“Club Scouts” should
rea,d “Cub Scouts.”
38
P ag e 58—F irs t answ er—Add w ord “System ?”
a t end of sentence.
P ag e 59—F ourth answ er, fourth line—W ord “re
sponse” should read “respond .”
Page 63—F ifth line on page read e “for m ora l
conduct,” should read “for im m oral conduct.”
Page 65—Second answ er reads “Coahoma operates on
a school system,” should omit “on”.
Page 69—F ifth question should read : “Now, do
you recall w hether or not w hile serv ing as Supervisor
in the iCoahoma County schools, you p layed any p a r t
in recom m ending teach e rs to be reh ired from y ear
to y e a r? ”
P ag e 71—Second question should read : “Are you
fam iliar a t all w ith h e r ex tra -cu rricu la r activity
P ag e 73—F irs t answ er should read : “Well, there
w as no need to reprim and h e r .”
Page 76—Third question should read: “Do you re
call w hether or not the affidavit which was attached
to M rs. H enry’s con tract listed the N.A.A C.P. as one
of the organizations in w hich she is a m em ber?”
Page 93—F irs t line should read : . . school and
for tha t reason it is relevant. . . . ”
Page 95—Second question, second line should read:
“ . . . did you get out in the com m unity. . .”
39
Page 97—F irs t answ er should read : “I know she
w as or had been . . . ”
Page 102—Statem ent of Mr. Bell, first paragraph,
should read: “I think, Your Honor, it is going to be
n ecessa ry for us to ge t into the record w hat every
body knows in regards to segregation and the desire
of the e lectors in Coahoma County to m ain ta in seg re
gation .”
P ag e 115—F ir s t answ er, “m oral c h a rg e” should
read “m orals ch arge .”
P ag e 120—F o u rth line: “suggestive e rro r” should
read “suggestion of e rro r .”
P age 138—Sentence on bottom line should read :
“T h a t would certa in ly be a self-serving d ec la ra tio n .”
P ag e 145—F irs t answ er: The w ord “p lacquers”
used tw ice in the answ er should be “p la ca rd s .”
P la in tiff concurs w ith defendan ts’ s ta tem en t that
the suggested changes above m ay not be in the exact
language used in the Courtroom , but the corrections
a re in tended to accura te ly reflec t the substance of
the s ta tem en ts th e re m ade. P lain tiff’s counsel has
not listed the m any small typographical and spelling
e rro rs which are obvious on th e ir face. It is fe lt th a t
w hen the record is p rin ted on appeal, these correc
tions can be expeditiously m ade.
R. JE S S BROWN,
DERRICK A. BELL, JR.,
1251/2 N. Farish Street,
Jackson, M ississippi.
40
JACK G R EEN B ER G ,
DERRICK A. BELL, JR .,
A ttorneys for P lain tiff.
10 Columbus Circle,
New Y ork 19, New York.
D ated: M arch 16, 1964.
F iled M ar. 19, 1964.
M aynard, F itzG era ld & M aynard
L aw yers
Clarksdale, M ississippi
M arch 18, 1964
M rs. M elita Lentjes,
Deputy D istric t Court Clerk,
C larksdale,
M ississippi.
D ear M elita:
Re: Noelle M. H enry v. Coahom a County B oard of
Education, e t a l No. D-C-43-62.
We are inclosing suggested corrections of tra n s
cript in the above case made by a tto rneys for plain
tiff and a tto rneys for defendant. Both a tto rneys agree
th a t these corrections should be m ade.
We also inclose a therm ofax copy of le tte r from Mr.
D errick A. Bell, J r . , agreeing likew ise th a t if these
corrections a re made the tran scrip t m ay be con
41
sidered official w ithout the signatu re of the Court
rep o rte r.
If you have any question as to the suggested cor
rections, p lease advise us.
Very tru ly yours,
MAYNARD, FITZGERALD &
MAYNARD,
By WM. H. MAYNARD.
Incls:
WHM/1
CC: Honorable Claude F. Clayton,
Tupelo, M ississippi.
H onorable Will S. Wells,
A ssistan t A ttorney General,
Jackson M ississippi.
M r. R. Je ss Brown,
115 1/2 N. F a rish S treet,
Jackson, M ississippi.
SUGGESTED CORRECTIONS TO BE MADE IN
TRANSCRIPT O F TESTIMONY.
Filed Mar. 19, 1964.
(Title Om itted.)
In our following lis t of suggestions we have not
included all of the m inor e rro rs which we consider
w ere m ade. However, we do believe that the follow
ing corrections a re proper and should be m ade. We
shall list these suggestions in the order in which the
pages in the tra n sc r ip t occur.
42
On P age 3 the R ep o rte r has u n d ertak en to set out
a stipulation of counsel as she evidently understood
it to be made. She has en tire ly failed to s e t forth
th is stipulation, the tru e stipulation is in effect as
follows:
“By agreem ent w ith A ttorney Bell, it is agreed
th a t the Coahoma County B oard of Education, w hich
is one of the defendants here, and the Superin tendent
of Education, who likewise is a defendant, a re the
Board of Education and Superin tendent, respectively ,
of a county w ide school d istric t as defined by the
s ta tu tes of the S tate of M ississippi, which d is tric t is
nam ed Coahoma County School D istrict, and com
prises all of the te rr ito ry of Coahom a County, Mis
sissippi, outside of the te rrito ria l lim its of the City
of C larksdale, M ississippi.
“It is likew ise agreed th a t the C larksdale Munici
pal S epara te School D istric t, w hich is the only school
district o ther th an the Coahom a County School D is
tr ic t w ithin Coahoma County, M ississippi, has te r
rito ria l boundaries co-extensive1 w ith said City of
C larksdale, M ississippi” .
On Page 7 under the fourth question, the sixth
word should be “of” ra ther than “or”, thus making
the corrected sentence read:
“And, w hat w as the scale of sa la ry th a t you earned
during the la s t y ea r th a t you taugh t?”
On Page 31, under the fourth question, the w ord
in the th ird line should read “led” ra th e r than “lead ”.
43
On P ag e 32 the f irs t “ is” should be omitted, thus
m aking the corrected sentence read : “In consider
ing if she be fam iliar w ith th a t program , she cer
ta in ly is com petent”.
The f irs t question on Page 34 should read as follows
ra th e r th an read ing as in the transcrip t.
“And served ten consecutive years” rather than
the “And, skipped ten consecutive y e a rs”.
On Page 35 the second question should read as follows:
“D uring each of the eleven y ears w ith the Coahoma
County School District, or whatever school district it
w as called, did you fully comply w ith the co n trac t?”
On Page 64 the w ord “s ta tu e ” in the first line
should be “ s ta tu te ”.
On P age 81 the la s t line should read:
“And a t no tim e did the S uperin tendent or the
B oard of E ducation refuse to renew her contract”.
On P ag e 110 the line constitu ting the second par
ag rap h of the firs t answ er of the w itness should
read:
“ In M arch of la s t y ear h er husband w as convicted
of a m orals charge” .
On P ag e 116 the firs t s ta tem en t made by Mr. Bell
should read :
44
“I think we m ain ta in —no, we a re m ainly concerned
w hether or not the S uperin tendent bothered to find
out any of th is inform ation”.
You will notice th a t the suggested change substi
tu tes the w ord ' ‘S uperin tendent” for the tran scrip t’s
w ord “w hites”.
On P age 118, the a tto rney nam ed in the th ird an
sw er as “Mr. L ight” should be “Mr. Luckett” .
F o r purposes of clarification the m otion m ade by
one of the a tto rneys for defendants as to grounds for
a m otion for a perem ptory instruction should be
corrected . A lthough counsel does not reca ll the exact
language of th is m otion it is so bad ly stated in the
R ecord as to be not understood. (R. 128) In substance
it w as as follows:
“And now come S. B. Wise, G raham B ram lett,
S. H. Kyle and J . F . Hum ber, J r ., as defendant and
m em bers of the Coahom a County, M ississippi, School
B oard of Education, and move th a t all of the te s ti
m ony introduced on behalf of plain tiff against said
defendants be excluded and stricken from the R ecord
and said cause be d ism issed to the p rejudice of p lain
tiff as against said defendants, and for cause shows:
“This cause s ta tes as a basis of its case against
m em bers of said B oard th a t they failed to re-employ
the plaintiff, Noelle H enry, for the scholastic y e a r
1962-63 in the Coahom a County School D istrict. The
evidence shows th rough the testim ony of the Super
in tendent of Education, P au l H unter, th a t said Su
45
perin tenden t of Education did not recommend to the
B oard of E ducation that it re-em ploy the plaintiff,
and under the law of M ississippi in a county wide
school d istric t such as the one involved here, it is
n ecessa ry before the Board of Education can employ,
or re-em ploy, a teacher tha t said employment, or
re-em ploym ent, be recom m ended by the S uperin tend
ent of Education.
“As a second count for said m otion it is shown th a t
the en tire basis of th is suit, as set out in the com plaint
of plaintiff, is th a t the civil righ ts of p lain tiff under
the s ta tu tes of the United States of A m erica w ere
violated, and th a t plaintiff w as not re-em ployed for
the sole reason th a t she and her husband had been
active in the activ ities of the NAACP. There is not a
suggestion of evidence by any of the w itnesses here
th a t th a t w as the reason for h e r not being re-em
ployed and on the con trary the Superin tendent of
Education testified th a t this did not en te r in any w ay
into his consideration not to m ake the recom m enda
tion of re-em ploym ent.
“That is our m otion w ith re ference to the B oard”.
On Pages 130 and 131 our m otion for a perem p
to ry instruction on behalf of the Superin tendent of
Education is likew ise m isquoted and should be in
substance as follows:
“We now come and move on behalf of defendant
P au l H unter, Superin tendent of E ducation of Coa
homa County School D istrict of Coahom a County,
M ississippi, th a t all evidence against him be excluded
46
and th a t the cause of plaintiff be d ism issed as to him
w ith prejudice.
“For cause for said m otion said defendan t shows
tha t under the s ta tu tes of the S tate of M ississippi,
as in te rp re ted by the Suprem e Court of M ississippi,
the m a tte r of m aking recom m endations for employ
m ent or re-em ploym ent of a teacher in a county
wide school d istrict as is the one here involved is
solely w ithin the judgm ent and d iscretion of the
S uperin tendent of Education and not to be controlled
in any w ay by any Court;
“And, second, the case ag ain st the Superintendent
of E ducation fails as again st the m em bers of the
B oard of E ducation because it a sse rts th a t he w as
depriving the p lain tiff of her righ ts in th is case solely
because of h e rs and her husband’s activ ities in
NAACP and th is has not been proven.
“And the th ird ground for the S uperin tendent of
Education, if he needed to give reasons for not m ak
ing any recom m endations, said reasons, if given,
w ere completely sufficient to legally allow him not to
recom m end the re-em ploym ent of the plaintiff, Noelle
H enry .”
On Page 136 the w ord “s it” occurring in the f irs t
line of the second question should read “ sat” ra th e r
th an “s it”.
In m aking the above suggestions it m ust be re
m em bered th a t the exact language as used in the
Courtroom by the w itnesses and counsel cannot be
47
com pletely accurately tran sc rib ed but certain ly the
Record should reflect the substance of these ques
tions and statem ents,
WM. H. MAYNARD,
(Wm. H. M aynard),
Of Counsel for the
D efendants.
F iled Aug. 14, 1963.
In the D istric t Court of the U nited States, for the
N orthern D istric t of M ississippi, D elta Division.
Noelle M. H enry, P lain tiff,
vs.
Coahoma County B oard of Education, a public Body
C orporate; P au l H unter, Superin tendent; S. B.
Wise, P residen t; S. H. Kyle, C. M. Allen, J . F.
Hum ber, J r . , and G raham B ram lett, M em bers,
D efendants.
Civil Action No. D-C-43-62.
Be It R em em bered th a t the above styled cause
came on to be heard on th is the 29th day of July, 1963,
a t nine o’clock A. M., in the U nited S tates D istric t
Court for the D elta Division, a t Oxford, before th e
H onorable Claude F. Clayton, D istric t Judge, p resid
ing, w here proceedings w ere had, as follows:
48
A ppearances:
F o r the P la in tiff: Mr. R. Jess Brown, Jackson,
M ississippi, Mr. D errick Bell, Suite 2030, 10
Columbus Circle, New Y ork City, New York,
M rs. B a rb a ra M orris.
F o r the D efendants: Mr. W illiam H. M aynard,
C larksdale, M ississippi, M r. Will S. W ells,
A ssistan t A ttorney G eneral, New Capitol Bldg.,
Jackson, M ississippi.
The Court:
You m ay be seated .
Will you call all your w itnesses around and le t them
be sworn.
The M arshal:
All the w itnesses come inside the b a r and be sworn,
rig h t around here.
(Whereupon, all the w itnesses w ere duly sworn,)
The Court:
Show the w itnesses out of the room.
Mr. M aynard:
May the w itnesses, the defendan ts s tay in the
Courtroom ?
The Court:
Yes, they m ay rem ain.
Mr. Bell:
I would like to see w hich of these w itnesses a re to
appear.
49
The Court:
Would you like to—how long will it take?
Mr. Bell:
J u s t long enough to get the nam es of those who a re
here tha t would be sufficient.
The Court:
Well, you probably need a recess for tha t.
Mr. Bell:
I don’t know, I th ink five m inutes would do.
The Court:
I don’t know of any a tto rney or any out-of-state
law yer who can move tha t fast.
[2] C ourt is in recess until tw enty m inutes a fte r
nine.
(W hereupon Court recessed at nine five o’clock.)
The Court:
You m ay be seated .
You m ay call your f irs t w itness for the plaintiff.
Mr. Brown:
F irs t I would like to at th is time to in troduce to
the Court A ttorney D errick Bell of New York.
The Court:
Yes, I know A ttorney B.ell.
50
Mr. Brown:
And Mrs. B a rb a ra M orris of the New Je rse y bar.
Mr. Bell is w ith the P ennsy lvan ia Bar. We give th is
for the defendants inform ation.
The Court:
Is it M orris?
M rs. M orris:
M orris.
The Court:
M orrison?
M rs. M orris:
M orris.
The Court:
Would you spell it, please?
M rs. M orris:
(Spelling) M-o-r-r-i-s.
The Court:
All right.
I think it m ay be well by stipulation—-This [3] will
be tak en as a full hearin g on the m erits, th a t is
co rrect, i ts ’t it?
Mr. Bell:
Yes, sir.
M r. Maynard:
Yes, sir, th a t is correct.
51
By agreem ent w ith A ttorney Bell, it is agreed th a t
the Coahoma County Board of Education, w hich is
one of the defendants here, and the S uperin tenden t
of Education, who likewise is a defendant, a re the
B oard of E ducation and Superin tendent, respectively,
of a county wide school d is tric t as fefined by the
s ta tu es of the S tate of M ississippi, which d istrict is
nam ed Coahoma County School D istrict, and com
prises all of the te rr ito ry of Coahom a County, Mis
sissippi, outside of the te rrito ria l lim its of the City
of C larksdale, M ississippi.
It is likewise agreed th a t the C larksdale M unici
pal S epara te School D istrict, which is the only school
d is tric t o ther th an the Coahom a County School Dis;
tr ic t w ithin Coahoma County, M ississippi, has te r
rito ria l boundaries co-extensive w ith said City of
Clarksdale, M ississippi.
The Court:
A nything fu rth er to be taken up before the first
w itness is called?
Mr. Bell:
No, sir.
Mr. M aynard:
No.
Mr. Bell:
We call as our first w itness M rs. Noelle H enry, the
plaintiff.
52
[4] N O ELLE HENRY, the w itness having been
duly sw orn in th is case, testified as follows:
D irect Exam ination.
By M r. Bell:
Q. Would you s ta te your full nam e?
A. Mrs. Noelle H enry.
Q. W hat is your residence?
A. My residence is 636 P ag e Avenue, C larksdale,
M ississippi.
Q. W hat is your race?
A. I am Negro.
Q. W here w ere you born?
A. I w as born a t Jackson, M ississippi.
Mrs. M orris:
Your Honor, the gentlem en over h e re by the w all
say we should use the lectern . We p refer to s tay here.
The Court:
It is all righ t for counsel to rem ain a t the counsel
table or to use the lectern as you prefer.
Mrs. M o rris :
Thank you, Your Honor.
D irect E xam ination (Continuing):
By M r. Bell:
Q. W here w ere you born?
A. In Jackson, M ississippi
Q. Will you describe for the Court your educa
tional [5] background?
53
A. Well I received a R. S. D egree a t Jackson S tate
College and I have done—
Q. W hat year?
A. That year w as 1945.
Q. And w here did you go to high—public school?
A. Jackson College elem entary grades and high-
school too.
The Court:
Will you speak a little louder?
The W itness:
I a ttended e lem en tary g rades and Jackson S tate
College and also Campbell College High School.
D irect E xam ination (C ontinu ing):
By M r. Bell:
Q. And now, you say you have a B. S. D egree?
A. I have, yes, sir.
Q. W here did you obtain th a t B. S. D egree?
A. O btained it a t Jackson, M ississippi.
Q. A nything fu rther?
A. And I did g radua te in L atin and English.
Q. Will you describe for the Court your teaching
experience?
A. Well, I had five y ears teaching experience in
the city system in Jackson.
Q. Beginning when?
A. B eginning in Septem ber of 1945 until May, 1950.
[6] Q. And then what?
A. I have had eleven y ears experience in the
Coahoma County schools in C larksdale, M ississippi.
Q. W hat?
A. The Coahoma County schools.
Q. Which schools did you teach in the C larksdale
and Coahoma County?
A. I taugh t a t McCloud High school.
Q, And, would you rep ea t again w hat the periods
of tim e th a t you w ere there?
A. Well, I tau g h t from N ovem ber of 1950. I tau g h t
one y ear and I w as out a year. I w as out a y ear, 1951
and 1952, and then, I w ent back in 1952 and the sam e
school until 1962.
The Court:
I believe we would get along b e tte r if counsel would
use the lectern. She would be answ ering a little bit
m ore distinctly and a little louder.
I have difficulty in hearin g w hat she is saying.
D irec t E xam ination (Continuing):
By Mr. Bell:
Q. W hen w as the last tim e—w hen w as the la s t
y ea r that you taught in the Coahoma County System ?
A. The la s t te rm I tau g h t was the te rm of 1961
and 1962.
[7] Q. And th a t ended when?
A. In May.
Q. In 1961 or 1962?
A. 1962.
Q. Would you not le t your voice drop.
W hat g rades did you teach?
A. I w as teach er of the Third G rade.
Q. And, w hat w as the scale of sa la ry tha t you
earned during the la s t year th a t you taught?
A. My sa la ry w as $3450.
55
Q. This Coahom a County—The McCloud School
w hich you taugh t w hat w as the race of the pupils
who w ere—you w ere in struc ting in th a t school?
A. N egro.
Q. W ere th e re any w hite pupils in th a t school?
A. No, sir.
Q. W hat size, w hat w as the average size of the
c lasses th a t you tau g h t in th a t school?
A. The av erage sizes I tau g h t varied . This one
y e a r I had seventy-one, the next y ear I would have
sixty or m ore. The size of my classes varied.
Q. But the average was about what?
A. The av erag e fifty^ maiybe fifty-ifijve..
Q. Did it ever get any h igher th an tha t?
A. Well, it depended on the w eather. If we had
very bad w eather, the children had whooping cough,
bu t [8] usually w hen the w eath er w as good—
Q. It w as about the sam e total th a t w as enrolled
in the beginning of the y ear?
A. Well, the av erage num ber of studen ts th a t
would—
The Court:
I don’t w ish to re s tr ic t counsel in his exam ination
of the num ber of students and the num ber of pupils
in th is class, but w hat does th is have to do w ith the
question in th is case?
Mr. Bell:
Well only in regard we feel, Your Honor, we can
show a very good teacher doing a good job under
quite a few handicaps.
As fa r as class size and th ings of th is n a tu re are
concerned.
56
The Court:
All righ t. Go ahead .
Mr. Bell:
Would the rep o rte r read the la s t question?
The Court:
I th ink it w as w hat is the av erag e enrollm ent a t the
beginning of the school y e a r in your class?
The W itness:
Well, they—you see, they usually come p erhaps the
f irs t w eek on or the second week. They would come
perhaps a t the beginning f r W the firs t enrollm ent.
There would be probably forty to forty-five and m ore
would continue to come. It rea lly tak es them about a
m onth. Then they would come in during the school
year, too.
[9] Q. Do you recall how m any teachers w ere
assigned to the McCloud School?
Mr. M aynard:
We object to th is as leading us far afield. We a re
going to ask—
The Court:
You a re objecting?
Mr. M aynard:
Yes, sir.
The Court:
Objection is overruled.
57
D irect E xam ination (C ontinuing):
By Mr. Bell:
|Q. How m any teach e rs w ere assigned to the Mc
Cloud School?
A. T here w ere ten teach e rs and a principal.
Q. Who is the Principal?
A. Mr. C harles C. Ball.
Q. W hat was the race of the principal and the
o ther teachers?
A. They were N egroes.
Q. W ere any w hite teach ers assigned during your
experience?
A. No, th e re w eren ’t.
Q. Now, w ere there persons over the Principal?
W as there a Supervisor over the P rincipal of your
school?
A. Yes, sir, there was.
Q. W hat w as the title?
A. Gen Supervisor of the school.
[10] Q. D uring the la s t year, w hat w as that person’s
nam e?
A. G eraldine W hite.
Q. W as th e re any other Supervisor during the
period th a t you taugh t in th is school year?
A. No. Yes, sir, th e re were, I am sorry.
Q. W hat w ere th e ir nam es?
A. M rs. L illian Rogers Johnson, and G eraldine
White.
Q. W hat a re th e ir race?
A. N egro.
Q. Now, you indicated th a t you taught the th ird
grade. W hat courses did you teach?
58
A. I tau g h t a ll subjects of the Third G rade which
included: R eading, w riting , language, spelling, a rith
m etic, health , citizenship—I taught all the sub jec ts
of the grade.
Q. W ere you involved in any ex tra -cu rricu la r ac
tivities o ther th an the teach ing assigned?
A. Yes, sir, I w as.
Q. D escribe them?
A. Well, the Tri Hi-Y Club.
Q. W hat is tha t?
A. The Tri Hi-Y Club is an religious organization
sponsored by the Y.M.C.A. and its purpose is to
create and m ain ta in high standards of C hristian liv
ing.
[11] Q!. W hat did you do as sponsor of th is organi
zation? W hat type of activity did you engage in?
A. We engaged in quite a few. We attended dis
tric t and s ta te m eetings and th a t usually cabled for
m em bers of the club to go various p laces and we had
regular activities. We did a fa rm one y ear. T ha t is
about the size of it. We alw ays a ttended tha t.
Q. W ere th e re any other ex tra -cu rricu la r activ i
ties th a t you do?
A. I served as Den m other for the Bey Scouts.
Q. Any others?
A. I served as S ec re ta ry of the P.T.A. and I
p a rtic ip a ted in all the drives such as the Cancer
D rive, the R ed Cross D rive and I served as C hair
m an on m any of those drives and aided the school to
ra ise its quote.
Q. Now. w hat tvoe of teaching con trac t did you
receive from the Coahoma County Board?
A. A one y ear teach ing con tract.
59
Q. C an you describe the p rocedure followed in
obtaining that contract? How were you informed
each year? How did you apply each y e a r if th a t w as
necessa ry for this contract?
A. Well, the P rincipal would have a conference
w ith the teach e rs , usually the la tte r p a rt of M arch
and he would ta lk w ith you and te ll you how you had
done during the school term , and he would also tell
you [12] if he w as recom m ending you to teach for
the next school term .
Q. Now, when did you actually—w hen did you
generally get your con tract for the next school year?
A. Well, usually I would get a con tract a t the
beginning of th a t ensuing school term , w hen we go
back to the school we would get up the contracts.
Q. W as it or w as it not the usual procedure th a t
w hen the P rincipal m ade his recom m endation or
indicated to you he was going to make recom m enda
tions, did th a t give you any idea th a t you would
probably be h ired or not?
A. It did.
Q. You indicated the la s t y ea r w as th a t—the la s t
y ea r th a t you taugh t w as 1961-1962 school year. Did
you have a conference w ith you Principal at the
la tte r p a r t of 1961-1962 concerning the next school
vear?
A. I did.
Q. And, can you describe the substance of w hat
occurred a t the conference?
A. W hat we—
Mr. W ells:
We object for m any reasons—for the reason it calls
for b earsav and the P rincipal of who is not a de
60
fendant in th is case and the details w ith any con
ference—she had w ith any conference would not be
perm issib le if it w as a conversation not in the [13]
p resence of any defendants in th is case.
The Court:
I reserve ruling on tha t. The w itness m ay answ er.
The W itness:
The P rin c ip a l called me in on the 2,1st of M arch
and he said th a t he w as getting his recom m endations
for teachers for the ensuing y ear and he questioned
me concerning the school program and I had done
m y work, he said, satisfacto rily and he asked if I
w anted to teach w ith them again next year. I said
yes, and he inform ed me, he w as recommending m e.
Q. Would you indicate w hen th a t w as?
A. That was on the 21st of M arch.
Q. W hat year?
A. 1962.
Q. Don’t le t your voice drop. What w as the next
th ing you h eard about your con trac t for the 1962-1963
years?
A. I d idn’t h e a r anything else until June the 4th.
Q. W hat happened on th a t occasion?
A. Well, on June 4, the Supervisor, M rs. G eraldine
W hite called me i n -
Mr. Wells:
If the Court please, we will object to the conversa
tion betw een these w itnesses and the Supervisor being
heard—h earsay , and the superv isor in reference to
the contract to teachers m akes no recom m endation
61
under the s ta tu te . The [14] P rincipal m akes the
recom m endation to the Supervisor, but the Supervi
sor has no official capacity in the em ploym ent of
the teach ers .
We subm it th a t th a t would not be a com petent
answ er.
The Court:
I reserve ruling. The w itness m ay answ er.
The W itness:
The Supervisor inform ed me th a t Mr. H unter asked
h e r to tell me th a t the Board did not go along w ith
o ther recom m endations for me for the term of 1962
and 1963.
D irect E xam ination (C ontinu ing):
By Mr. Bell:
Q'. Did you lea rn a t th a t tim e why the Board would
not go along?1
A. I did not.
Q. And, a t th a t point, did you take any fu rth er
action on your contract?
A. Not then, no, I didn’t
Q. Why didn’t you take fu rth e r action a t tha t
tim e?
A. Well, a t th a t point, M r. Ball, my Principal
w as out of tow n and he had inform ed me he w as
recom m ending m e and I w anted to see w hat hap
pened, so I didn’t until he re tu rned .
Q. Do you recall w hen he re tu rned?
A. Yes, I do.
62
[15] Q. Did you lea rn any fu rth er information about
the action on the contract?
A. Well, he didn’t know anything about it until I
asked him about it. He didn’t know. He had not been
told.
Q. Did you recall w hen you ta lked to him ?
A. I ta lked to him on the 18th of June.
Q. Did you take any fu rth e r action w ith reg a rd
to your contract?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. W hat did you do?
A. I called Mr. H unter.
Q. Who is Mr. H unter?
A. He is the S uperin tendent of the school.
Q. Then w hat happened?
A. I called Mr. H unter and told him I would like
to have a conference w ith him?
Q. Was it g ranted?
A. Yes.
Q. W ould you give us the substance?
A. I called Mr. H unter and he gave me a date to
ta lk to him , and I told him th a t I had been inform ed
by M rs. W hite tha t the B oard did not renew my con
tra c t and I w anted to know why and he said to me
well, I w ant to say th is th a t your con tract is not a con
tinuous one, and we have it renew ed from y ea r to
y ear. Your IT61 contract ju s t w asn’t renew ed for
1962-1963. and he said I don’t know why the board
didn’t renew your con tract; in going over the con
tracts w hen thev got to vour nam e, th ey said
don’t choose to renew th is one.
They didn’t te ll me why and I don’t know whv. So
T said to him, “Do you th ink the B oard will te ll me,
w hv?” He said. “ I don’t know. You can w rite a le tte r
63
Q. W hat did you do in regard to that suggestion?
A. In re g a rd s to th a t suggestion, I w rote to the
Board.
Q. Do you recall the date when you w rote this
le tte r?
A. June 30.
Q:. Did you m ake a copy of the le tte r th a t you sent
to the Board?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. W hen you m ade the copy?
A. I m ade the copy and I usually w rite my le tters
off firs t and m ake another. I keep the original copy.
Q. I would like to have th is m arked as Exhibit
No. 1 for the P la in tiff for identification.
The Court:
Let it be so m arked.
(Said document w as m arked P la in tiff’s Exhibit
No. 1 for identification.)
[17] Mr. Wells:
If the Court please, th is a carbon. We need to read
it. I
The Court:
All right.
Mr. M aynard:
If the Court p lease, th e re is such a slight d iscrep
ancy th a t we have no objection.
The Court:
All right.
64
Mr. Bell:
I show you this le tte r m ark ed P la in tiffs Exhibit
No. 1 for Identification and ask you do you recognize
th a t?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. W hat do you recognize it as?
A. This le tte r?
Q. Yes.
A. As the le tte r th a t I w rote to the Coahoma B oard
of Education.
Mr. M aynard:
A ttorney Bell m ay have the photostat copy which
appeared to be a copy of Hhe le tte r in troduced as
P la in tif fs E xhib it No. 1.
We have no objections.
The Court:
If you p refer to use it, you m ay w ithdraw the one
m ark ed P la in tiff’s E xhib it No. 1 and en ter the photo
s ta t copy.
Mr. M aynard:
We make no point of it. This happens to be co rrec t
and th a t one doesn’t happen to be.
[18] Mr. Bell:
All right.
(Said document w as m arked substitu te P la in tiff’s
Exhibit No. 1 for Identification.)
65
D irect E xam ination (Continuing):
By Mr. Bell:
Q. Would you read the contents of th a t le tte r th a t
you indicated th a t you subm itted to the B oard on
June 30?
A. (R eading) “636 P age Avenue, Clarksdale, Mis
sissippi, June 30, 1962 to the Coahom a County B oard
of Education, Mr. S. B. Wise, Chairm an County Court
House Bldg., C larksdale, M ississippi, D ear Sirs:
“I am a teacher of Coahom a [County and have
taught in the system eleven years.
“R ecently I w as inform ed th a t the B oard did not
renew my contract for the ensuing year. Since my
principal, superv isor or superin tenden t have never
complained or m ade any charges against m e, I would
like to know why my contract w as not renew ed.
“ I would appreciate it if I could have a conference
w ith the Board concerning th is m a tte r a t your earliest
possible date. I shall be available for a conference
any day a fte r Ju ly 7.
[191 “Thank you for the consideration you will give
this m atte r. Y ours truly, Mrs. Noelle M. H enry.”
Q. Did you receive any response?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. W hat was the n a tu re of the response?
A. A telephone call.
Q. A telephone call from whom?
A. From Mr. H unter.
Q. F rom M r. H unter?
A. T hat is right.
Q. W hat w as the substance of th a t telephone call?
66
A. Well, Mr. H unter called and he said th a t the
B oard had received my le tte r and the B oard asked
him to te ll me th a t w hat the Board had done w as
final and it would be a w aste of tim e to call an ex tra
session.
Q. At th a t time w as th e re any indications given to
you by Mr. H unter why the B oard had tak en the
action th a t they had?'
A. No.
Q. Did you take any fu rth er action?
A. He said th a t the B oard had inform ed m e to call
you.
Q. Was th e re any indications given to you during
th a t conversation as to why the B oard had given to
[20] act against you?
A. Not over the telephone.
Q. Did you take any fu rth er action in regard to
your con tract?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. W hat action did you take?
A. I then w rote a le tte r to Mr. H unter and asked
him to in tercede in my behalf to get the conference
w ith the Board.
Q. Do you reca ll the date of th a t le tte r?
A. L e t’s see—I have a copy.
Q. Did you m ake a copy of tha t le tte r?
A. I did.
Mr. Bell:
I ask th a t th is le tte r be m arked P la in tiff’s E xhib it
No. 2 for Identification.
The Court:
Let it be so m arked.
67
(Said document w as m arked P la in tiff’s E xhib it No.
2 fo r Identification.)
Mr. M aynard:
Excuse us Your Honor while we read this.
The Court:
All right.
M r. M aynard:
We have no objection to it, Your Honor.
[21] D irec t Exam ination (C ontinuing):
By Mr. Bell:
Q. I show you P la in tif fs E xhib it No. 2 for Identi
fication, do you recognize th a t le tte r?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. W hat—W as th a t the le tte r th a t you indicated
that you w rote to Mr. H unter?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you read it?
A. (R eading) “636 Page Avenue, C larksdale, Mis
sissippi, A ugust 31, 1962 to M r. P au l M. H unter, Su
perin tendent, Coahom a County Schools, Coahoma
County Court House, C larksdale, M ississippi.
“D ear Mr. H unter:
“ I am sure th a t you recall our previous conversa
tion in your office June 2,8 regard ing a message I
received from M rs. G eraldine W hite Negro Super
visor of Coahoma County Schools.
“The m essage w as th a t you had inform ed h e r th a t
my contract to teach in Coahoma County would not
68
be renew ed. This m essage w as received from Mrs.
W hite, June 4, 1962.
“At the tim e of our conversation, I asked you for
the reason given that my con tract would not be re
newed. You said the B oard did not give you a reason.
I am asking again if you w ill be [22] kind enough
to relay to me the reason th a t the B oard gave to you
for they m ust have given some reason.
“ In the event the Board still w ill not give to you a
reason , will you please in tercede in my behalf to
secure for me a conference w ith the B oard so th a t
I m ight inquire d irectly to them.
“We both” know th a t a req u est for a conference
w ith the B oard has once been denied me. I do feel
how ever, tha t w ith your assistance a conference can
be a rran g ed .
“I would appreciate a reply a t your earlies t con
venience. Thank you.
“Respectfully Yours, Mrs. Noelle M. H enry.”
Q. Did you receive any response to th a t le tte r,
M rs. H enry?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. W hat w as the nature of th a t response?
A. Well, the n a tu re of th a t response w as a le tte r
from the Beard.
Q, Do vou recall the date of th a t le tte r?
A. No. I don’t but I have th a t le tte r here.
... — -• -------------- ------
Mr. Bell:
I would like to have th is docum ent m arked as
P la in tif fs E xhib it No. 3 for Identification.
[23] The Court:
Let it be so m arked .
69
(Said docum ent w as m ark ed P la in tiffs E xh ib it
No. 3 for Identification .)
Mr. M aynard:
We have no objection.
D irect E xam ination (Continuing)
By Mr. Bell:
Q. I show you th is le tte r m arked P la in tiff’s E x
hibit No. 3 for Identification and ask if you recognize
it?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. W hat is this?
A. A le tte r from M r. H unter.
Q. Would you read it?
A. (R eading) “The D epartm ent of Education, Coa
hom a County, P au l M. H unter, Superintendent,
C larksdale, M ississippi, Septem ber 12, 1962 to Noelle
M. Henry, 636 Page, C larksdale, M ississippi, from:
Coahoma County B oard of Education.
“Your reg is te red le tte r of A ugust 31, 1962, ad
d ressed to the Coahoma County B oard of E ducation
w as received and p resen ted to the Board.
“The B oard feels th a t the term s of the contract » ‘
were fulfilled and th e re is no need for fu rth er ne
gotiations.
V ery tru ly Yours, P au l M. H unter, S ecre tary , Coa
homa County B oard of E ducation .”
[24] Qi. Did you receive any fu rth e r action on
your contract from the Board?
A. I did not.
Q. Mrs. H enry—
70
Mr. Wells:
If it p lease the Court, th is le tte r w as m arked for
identification.
The Court:
All the le tte rs w ere m arked for identification.
Mr. Wells:
I w as inquiring if th a t was going to be offered into
■evidence?
Mr. Bell:
I don’t know, Your Honor.
If it is read into the record and it doesn’t c lu tte r
the record up w ith a lot of records. T hat is one of
the reasons we didn’t because they a re short.
Mr. Wells:
My objection is th is. We have no objection to in tro
ducing them into the record if it isn t we in tend to
and—we w ant th a t le tte r in the record if the Court
p lease.
Mr. Bell:
At th is time, Your Honor, p lain tiff would move
to in troduce Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 th a t have been
m arked for identification.
The Court:
L et them be received.
[25] (Said P la in tiff’s Exhib its Nos. 1, 2, and 3
m arked for Identification w ere in troduced into E v i
dence.)
D irect E xam ination (C ontinuing):
Mr. Bell:
Q. Now, you indicate, M rs. H enry, you have been
in the Coahoma County System for a to ta l of eleven
y ears during all of tha t period, do you recall ever
obtaining personal knowledge of any teach e r not
being h ired after having a recom m endation from
the P rin cip al and the Supervisor?
A. I don’t recall.
Q'. Now, during the whole period th a t you w ere
working in the system, do you recall ever having
been disciplined or reprim anded either by your P r in
cipal or your Supervisor?
A. No, sir.
Q. H ave you ever received any assistance—dis
ciplinary action from your Superin tendent of Schools?
A. No, I haven’t.
Q. F rom the B oard?
A. No, I haven’t.
Q. G enerally in your opinion, your relationship
w ith your fellow teachers has been satisfac to ry?
A. Yes, it has.
Q. A re you m arried , Mrs. H enry?
A. Yes.
[26] Q. W hen w ere you m arried?
A. I w as m arried in 1950.
Q. To whom are you m arried?
A. To A aron E. Henry.
Q. And, you a re still liv ing w ith him a t the p resen t
time?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. W hat is your husband’s occupation?
A. His occupation is pharmacy.
72
Q. Is he a p h a rm ac is t a t this tim e?
A. Yes.
Q. W here?
A. At C larksdale, M ississippi.
Q. How does he p rac tice pharm acy?
A. We have a drug store.
Q. Is he involved in any civic in te rests?
A. Yes, he is.
Q. W hat are they?
A. He is the S ta te P residen t of the N.A.A.C.P.
IQ. D escribe to us w hat the N.A.A.C.P. is?
A. That is a national association for the advance
m ent of colored people.
Q. Does your husband own any leadersh ip posi
tion in th is organization?
A. ces. He does—He is the S tate P residen t.
[27] Q'. State P resident?
A. T hat is right.
Q;. Of w hat?
A. Of the N.A.A.C.P.
Q. I see.
Do you recall approxim ately how long your husband
has been involved in the N.A.A.C.P.?
A. Since 1953, I would say.
Q. Would you be able to indicate the am ount of
time th a t your hujsband spfends w ith the various
duties of the N .A .A .C.P.?
A. Well, he spends quite a b it of time w ith the
N.A.A.C.P.
Q. A re you a m em ber of the N.A.A.C.P.?
A. Yes, I am .
O. Are you fam ilia r w ith the N. A. A. C. P . as
far as the investigation into the school system is
concerned?
73
A. Yes, I am.
Q. G enerally , w hat is the policy?
A. The policy is th a t the N.A.A.C.P. doesn’t mess
in the seg rega ted schools.
Q. Does your husband to your knowledge take
any action in reg a rd to segregated schools in the
Coahom a district?
A. No, he h a sn ’t tak en any action.
[28] Q. Has he tak en any action in reg ard to
seg regated schools in the City of C larksdale?
A. No, he h a sn ’t.
Q. Has he as a lead e r of the N.A.A.C.P. p repared
any p ro tes t ag ain st the operation of any of the schools
as they are p resen tly operated?
A. Well some tim e ago, well perhaps, 1955 or 1956,
there w as a petition gotten out asking them to de
segregate the city schools. It has been perhaps five
or six y ears ago.
Q. H as he done anything w ith reg a rd to the seg re
gated schools since th a t tim e in his position in the
N.A.A.C.P.?
A. No, he h asn ’t.
Q. Do you reca ll approx im ate ly how long you
have been tak ing out m em bership in the N.A.A.C.P.?
A. Well, perhaps th a t is w hen they firs t organized.
P erh ap s in 1953 and I took out m em bership every
y ear except the te rm of 1961-1962.
Q. Can you describe how you tak e out a m em ber
ship in the N.A.A.C.P.?
A. Well, sometimes if the S ecre tary will take your
m em berhip fee. Quite often it is left to you to take
it.
Q. How frequen tly a re the m em berships requ ired
to be renew ed?
74
[29] A. Once a year.
Q. A re you active in the N.A.A.C.P.?
A. I would like to answ er th a t th is way. I took
my m em bership out a t the time I was teaching school,
because I had so much school work, my school w ork
took up all my tim e and I rea lly didn’t have tim e to
do any active work in the N.A.A.C.P.
M ost of m y time w as devoted for teaching and p re
paring for my children. I d idn’t have tim e to be ac
tive in the N.A.A.C.P.
Q. You w ere ta lk ing a little while back how you
got your teaching contract during any p a rtic u la r
y ear. P rio r to actua lly getting your contract, w ere
th e re any o ther requirem ents th a t you had to fill?
A. Yes, there was.
Q. W hat w ere they?
A. We had affidav its to file listing the o rgan iza
tions th a t we w ere m em bers of.
Q. Do you recall how long you have had this re
qu irem en t to tak e care of?
A. Well, perhaps since 1956 or 1955 or 1956.
Q. C an you generally te ll us how you came to
get the affidav its and w hat you do w ith it?
A. Well, the P rincipal gave us the affidavits and
jW:d '[30] w ere to fill them out and give them back
to the P rincipal. When we received our contracts,
these affidavits w ere a ttach ed to our contracts.
Q. And did you do th is each y ear th a t you taught?
A. I did th a t each y e a r except 1961 and 1962.
Q. Did you lis t the N.A.A.C.P. each time you
filed one of these affidavits?
A. Yes, I did and I listed each time beginning
w ith the year we' s ta r ted filing them.
I am not sure of th a t year, but I did it each y e a r
and up to the y ear 1961 and 1962. I didn’t lis t it th a t
75
time. I d idn’t lis t it th a t y e a r and m y m em bership
had not been renewed.
I w asn’t a m em ber that y ear. It had not been re
newed. The S ecre tary had failed to pick up my mem
bership and I didn’t bother to put it down because
it h ad n ’t been renew ed.
Q. I t is correct th a t you did not receive a teach ing
con tract for the 1962,-1963 school year?
A. T hat is right.
Q. H ave you received any fu rth er w ord from the
Coahom a County B oard concerning the teaching
contract in the fu ture?
A. No, I haven’t.
[31] Q. H ave you received any fu rth er word from
the Coahom a County Board concerning the teaching
contract in the fu tu re?
A. No, I haven ’t.
Q. H ave you been employed during the p ast school
y e a r as a teacher?
A. Have I been em ployed as a teacher?
Q. Yes.
A. No, I haven’t.
Q. Ju s t one moment please.
Ju s t a few more Questions. Mrs. Henry. Are you
generally fam iliar w ith the N.A.A.C.P. program as
led by your husband since 1956?
A. S tate th a t again, please.
O. Are vou a t all fam ilia r w ith the program of
the N.A.A.C.P. in M ississippi as led by your husband
since 1956?
A. Yes, I am.
O. P u rin e this period has the N.A.A.C.P. issued
any policy statem ents or speeches been made or any
th ing of th is n a tu re in reg ard s to segregation in
schools?
76
M r. M aynard:
We object. We consider it not com petent th a t she
testified th a t she w as not active in the N.A.A.C.P.
H er husband certain ly is not the defendan t—plain
tiff in th is case.
[32] Mr. Bell:
In considering if she be fam iliar w ith th a t p ro
gram , she certain ly is com petent.
The Court:
I reserve ruling.
The W itness:
I am fam iliar w ith the program .
D irect E xam ina tion (C ontinuing):
B-y Mr. Bell:
Q. Is th a t righ t?
A. Yes.
Q. And, I ask you w hether or not you a re fam ilia r
w ith the policy on or positions or speeches th a t have
been given in reg a rd to the segregation of the schools?
A. I am try in g —we have th e ir help in the various
program s. We have m entioned segregated schools.
Q. Let me ask you, has the position on the segre
gated—on segregation tak en by the N.A.A.C.P. since
1955 been any d ifferent th an it w as in 1955?
A. H as it been any different?
Q. R ight.
A. I am still not following you. I don’t exactly
know w hat—Well, in 1955 we m entioned the petition.
Q. That is correct.
77
A. Well, since 1955 th e re has been a suit filed ask
ing for desegregation of the schools in ano ther county.
Q. W ell has the position of the N.A.A.C.P. as led
in th a t county by your husband has it been changed?
A. No, it h asn ’t.
[33] Mr. Bell:
I th ink th a t is all, Y our Honor.
The Court:
You m ay cross-exam ine.
Mr. M aynard:
May we tak e a few m inutes, Your Honor?
The Court:
Do you need a recess?
Mr. M aynard:
We would p re fe r it, Your Honor.
The Court:
Court is in recess until ten twenty-five.
(W hereupon the Court recessed a t ten ten o’clock
A. M.)
The Court:
You m ay be seated .
Cross Exam ination.
By Mr. M aynard:
Q. You testified th a t prior to the tim e th a t your
la s t contract of employment w ith the Coahoma Coun
ty School D istric t expired th a t you had taught eleven
years?
A. Yes, sir?
Q. 1951 w as one y ear?
A. Yes, sir.
[34] Q. And, served ten consecutive y ears?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. W ere each of the contracts substan tia lly the
sam e not identically the sam e form except for the
form ?
A. W ere they the sam e form ?
Q. Yes.
A. The Contracts?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, yes.
Q. W ere all one year contracts?
A. Yes.
Q. And, did any of them have the provision in th e re
for a renewal?
A. No.
Q. You en tered in the la s t con tract for the school
y e a r 1961-62?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And, th a t contract w as properly executed by
you?
A. T hat is right?
Q. I t w as properly executed by the Superintendent
of Schools of Coahoma County, M ississippi?
A. Yes, it was.
M r. M aynard:
I would like to have these m arked for identification
purposes, Your Honor.
79
The Court:
Let it be so m arked.
[35] (Said docum ent w as m arked D efendant’s E x
hibit No. 1 for Iden tification).
Q. D uring each y ear of your contract—
Mr. B ell:
May we see it please?
M r. M aynard:
I am going to show it to you you can look a t it.
Cross Exam ination (Continuing):
By Mr. M aynard:
Q. D uring each of the eleven y ears w ith the Coa
hom a County School D istric t, or w hatever school dis
tric t it w as called, did you fully comply w ith the con
trac t?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did the Coahoma or w hatever p a rticu la r school
d is tric t called fully comply w ith the contract?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. And, each tim e the contract w as renew ed a t
th is tim e?
A. Yes, sir.
The Court:
Ju s t a m inute Mr. M aynard, th is lady over here has
to tak e it down and I have to h e a r you, so don’t ju s t
nod your head.
80
Q. I hand you here w hat has been m arked Defend
a n t’s E xhib it No. 1 for your testim ony for purposes
of identification and ask you if you a re fam ilia r w ith
it. W ait a m inute, th a t is not the original, excuse me,
Your Honor.
[3’6] I ask you if you a re fam ilar w ith th a t con
trac t?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Did you sign tha t con tract?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. W as th a t contract likew ise signed by the Super
in tenden t of Education of Coahoma School D istrict?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does it have a ttach ed to it any papers?
A. An affidavit.
Q. Signed by whom ?
A. By me.
Q. Before a N otary Public?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And, w hat does th a t affidavit undertake to do?
A. Well, it lis ted the organization of which I am a
m em ber.
Q. W hen did th is con tract D efendan t’s Exhibit No.
1 for the purposes of Identification, w hen did it ex
pire?
A. It expired the end of the school te rm in 1962.
Q. Which would be some tim e?
A. In M ay of 1962.
Q. In M ay of 1962 and the school D istric t lived up
to all the term s of the contract?
. A. Yes, they did.
[37] Q. Did you comply w ith all yours?!
A. Yes, I did.
Q. We would like to have it, D efendants E xh ib it
No. 1 in troduced into evidence.
81
The Court:
Let it be introduced.
(Said docum ent w as in troduced into Evidence as
D efendan t’s Exhibit No. 1).
M r. M aynard:
No fu rth er cross exam ination.
The Court:
Anything on R edirect?
M r. Bell:
No, Your Honor.
As P lain tiff’s next w itness, we call M r. C harles H.
Ball.
[38] CHARLES H. BALL, the w itness having been
duly sw orn in th is case, testified as follows:
Mr. M aynard:
M ay it p lease the Court, we m ake no point to call
to the Court’s atten tion th a t th is w itness w as in the
Courtroom som etim e during the exam ination of the
w itness tha t ju st proceeded, isn’t that correct?
The W itness:
Yes, th a t is correct.
Mr. Bell:
We didn’t know it Your Honor.
The Court:
You m ay proceed.
82
Mr. Bell:
W ere th e re any other w itnesses?
Mr. M aynard:
We u n d erstand th a t L illian Johnson w as the other
one. We m ake no point. We would advise the Court.
Mr. Bell:
Sorry, Y our Honor. They are unfam iliar w ith the
procedure.
D irect E xam ination .
By Mr. Bell:
Q. S tate your full nam e?
A. Charles H. Ball, J r .
jQ. And w here is your residence?
A. My residence a t p resent?
[39] Q. Yes.
A. Lulu E lem en ta ry School, Lulu, M ississippi.
Q. And, w hat is your race?
A. Negro.
Q:. W ere you subpoenaed to be here th is m orning?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. W hat is your occupation?
A. School P rincipal.
Q. And, w ere you previously—Will you briefly re
count your tra in in g and your educational background?
A. I g radua ted from Jackson State Cqllege' in
1954 receiving a B. S. D egree and I did fu rther study
tow ards a M. A. D egree a t Jackson State.
Q. N ow, w here a re you teach ing or w here a re you
a P rincipal?
83
A. At Lulu E lem entary School, Lulu, M ississippi.
Q. How long have you held th a t position as P rinci-
pal?
A. I held the position of P rincipal a little m ore
th an two years.
Q. H ave you been principal a t any other schools
th an the Lulu school?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. W here w ere you P rincipal before?
[40] A. McCloud Jr,. High School.
Q. A re both of these schools located in the Coa
homa County School D istric t?
A. McCloud doesn’t ex ist.
Q. It did exist, didn’t it?
A. It did.
Q. W hat did you say?
A. Yes, it was in the sam e d istric t.
Q'. W hat happened to McCloud School?
A. It was consolidated.
Q. And by th a t you m ean w hat?
A. It m erged with o ther schools in the county.
Q. H ave you any actual teaching experience be
fore serving as a P rincipal?
A. Yes.
Q. W hen w as th a t?
A. I f irs t s tarted teaching in 1954 for two months
and then I w ent into the service and cam e back in
1956 and have been in the profession since.
Q. Are your full time duties now as P rincipal or
do you have teaching duties as well?
A. T have teaching duties, I am a teach ing P rinci
pal.
[41] Q. W hen you w ere P rincipal a t the McCloud
School, do you recall how m any teachers th e re w ere
assigned to you?
84
A. There w ere ten teachers assigned to me w hen
I became Principal of McCloud J r . High School.
Q. Do you recall w hether or not th a t one of the
teach ers assigned to you w as M rs. Noelle H enry?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. W as she or w as she not a teacher of th a t school
a t the time th a t you cam e as a Principal?
A. Yes, she w as a teacher w hen I becam e P rin c i
pal of the McCloud J r . H igh School.
Q. Now, as P rincipal is it your duty to partic ipate
in anyw ay in the determ ination of w hether teachers
who a re assigned to you during one y ear will be re
assigned to you during the next year?
A. As P rincipal, it is m y duty to recom m end them .
Q. To have a part in the determ ination of who a re
going to be your teachers for the following year?
A. I said to recom m end the te ach e r to w ork a the
school.
Q. Yes.
A. T hat is correct.
Q. Now, w hat p a r t do you play in th is recom m enda
tion and how do you—
[42] The Court:
I th ink it w as his duty to recommend those for r e
em ploym ent and to be em ployed.
Mr. Bell:
It w asn ’t clear.
The Court:
Isn’t th a t what you said?
The W itness:
T hat is the sta tem en t I m ade.
85
D irect E xam ination (C ontinuing):
By Mr. Bell:
Q. Would you describe the procedure by which
these recom m endations w ere m ade by you?
A. Well a fte r a teacher had been observed during
the year, I would go about—I m ean I have the recom
m endation conference w ith the teacher. However, the
teach e r’s w ork has a lread y been done, and I ju s t
ta lk w ith the teacher and m aybe we come across to
some of the work.
How you had done during the year, how well or how
poor it had been done, then I go ahead and list the
teacher to be recom m ended or not to be recommended
on the basis of h er w ork previously.
Q. D uring w hat p a r t of the school year does th is
recom m endation conference tak e place?
A. It usually comes off during the la tte r p a rt of
the school y ea r to m ake a recom m endation for the
incoming year.
[43] Q. And w hat do you base your recom m enda
tion on?
The Court:
He h as a lreadv answ ered th a t p a rt. It w as based
on w hat she taugh t and in the school te rm his observa
tion of h e r abilities.
The W itness:
It is based on the w ork cooperation and just the
quality of the teacher.
86
D irect E xam ination (C ontinuing):
By Mr. Bell:
Q. W ell tak ing one of those a t a time, on the a s
pect of cooperation w hat does th a t m ean to you w hen
you a re judging the teach er?
A. In the cooperation in our school system , th e re
a re a num ber of duties tha t a re assigned to the te ach
e rs tha t help to prom ote the school program th a t
doesn’t necessarily take p lace w ith in the classroom
such as supervision of the children in the p layground
or in the classroom . O ther supervision in the bus or
so fo rth th a t is the type of things, and the e x tra -cu r
ricu la r teach ing w ork w ere to help to prom ote the
group.
Q. Then by th is basis for—by which you can judge
your teach ers , do you have occasion to v isit the c lass
room from tim e to time?
[44] A. Yes, as P rin c ip a l we a re to v isit the class
rooms and we a re supposed to m ake classroom v is ita
tions and I do.
Q. Now, in m aking these recom m endations is there
any special form that you have to use or how do you
do it?
A. There is no special form th a t we use. We ju st
lis t the teach e rs and say I recommend the following.
!Q. If th e re a re teach e rs th a t you do not care to
recom m end, are they listed or do you m ake a lis t of
those te ach e rs also or not?
A. Yes, separa te ly .
Q. Separately?
A. Yes.
Q. Now. you indicated th a t M rs. Noelle H enry w as
a teacher in the system w hen you came. W as the firs t
y e a r w hen you had an opportunity to pass on h e r as
87
a teacher as fa r as th is recom m endation is concerned
the 1960-61 school session?
A. Yes.
Q. You would be passing on her for 1961-62 ?
A. That is the firs t y ear I w orked w ith her. That
is right. I passed on h e r nam e on the 1960-61 session.
Q. Can you reca ll w h a t your recom m endation w as
in [45] regard to M rs. H enry during th a t 1960-61
school session?
A. Yes, I recom m ended her.
!Q. Do you reca ll w hat your basis w as for recom
m ending her a t that time?
A. The basis w ere the sam e as for the o ther te ach
ers on the quality of the work. I said the sam e thing
th a t I judged the o ther teachers on.
Q. Did you base or m ake a recom m endation on
M rs. H enry on the 1962-63 school session, the one just
passed?
A. The 1962-63?
Q;. L et me ask you this. W ere you during the end
of the 1961-62 y ear, did you m ake recom m endation
on M rs. H enry for the next school y ear?
A. Yes.
Q. W hat w as th a t recom m endation?
A. I recom m ended her.
Q. You recommended her.
A. (W itness nods his head .)
(Q. And w hat w as your reason for recom m ending
h er a t th a t time?
A. Well, because I felt she had done her w ork and
[46] she had cooperated w ith the school program..
Q. Is it co rrec t th a t you testified during th is period
th e re w ere ten teachers assigned to you in the Mc
Cloud School?
A. Yes.
88
Q, Do you recall w hether during m aking the reco rd
of 1962-63 school y ear, w as th e re any teach e r th a t you
did not recom m end for nex t y ear?
A. Yes.
|Q. Do you reca ll the num ber of teach ers who w ere
not recom m ended?
A. Four.
Q. To your knowledge, a re any of the teachers th a t
you did not recom m end, did they in fac t teach during
the 1962-63 school y ear?
A. Yes.
Q. What num ber of the four taugh t?
A. To my knowledge, th ree . I cannot say about
the o ther one.
Q. Now, as to the th ree , w hat w as your basis for
not recom m ending them ?
Mr. M aynard:
If it p lease the Court, we object to this, it is en tire ly
irre levan t.
[471 The Court:
W hat is the re levancy of this?
Mr. Bell:
We have to show the action taken by the B oard in
re g a rd to the p lain tiff is en tire ly a rb itra ry in not keep
ing w ith the action.
The Court:
This objection is directed to those he did not recom
m end.
89
M r. Bell:
T hat is right, we w ant to know w hat happened to tne
p lain tiff and also w hat happened to the ones he did
not recom m end.
The Court:
I understood him to say he did not recom m end the,
four and th ree of them w ere employed.
Mr. Bell:
And th a t is correct.
The Court:
And you want to know his fa ilu re to recom m end
them?
Mr. Bell:
T hat is right.
The Court:
W hat relevancy does th a t have?
Mr. Bell:
Well, we have him saying they had s tan d a rd s as
fa r as he set for efficiency and cooperation. I want
to know w hether he—they had not m et the s tan d ard s
of efficiency or cooperation or w hether there had been
some other reason.
The Court:
All right. I reserve ruling. The w itness m ay answ er
the question.
[48] The W itness:
Would you rep ea t the question?
90
M r. Bell:
W ould the rep o rte r read the la s t question?
The Court:
R estate your question.
Mr, Bell:
As to the th ree—
The Court:
As to the four.
Mr. Bell:
The question, Your Honor, is to the three.
D irect E xam ination (C ontinuing):
By M r. Bell:
Q. As to the th ree you did not recom m end who you
u n d erstand a re teaching—taugh t or w ere assigned to
ano ther school for 1962-63 school y ear, w hat w as the
basis for not recom m ending them?
A. N on-cooperation in the school program .
Q. Now, as to the fourth teacher, a re you—you a re
not sure taught in the school y ea r or not, w hat is your
b asis of not recom m ending her?
A. E xcessive absen tism and m o ra l conduct.
Q. Now, is it co rrect, Noelle H enry w as recom
m ended by you for the 19’61-62 and also for the 1962-63
school years?
A. Yes.
[49] Q. And it is also co rrect for me to indicate
th a t you observed various te ach e rs—
91
Mr. M aynard:
If it p lease the Court, we objection to th is line of
question in th a t it is leading the w itness.
Mr. Bell:
I th ink ju s t going back over his. testim ony—
The Court:
I think I have p re tty well in mind w hat w as said.
You don’t need to go over the testim ony.
Mr. Bell:
Did you observe that Noelle Henry during that year—
Mr. M aynard:
He already testified to tha t.
The Court:
He testified th a t he recom m ended her for the two
y ears and he only had to pass for qualifications.
Mr. Bell:
All right, Y our Honor.
D irec t E xam ination (C ontinuing):
By Mr. Bell:
Q. Will you briefly sum m arize your professional
opinion based on the observation of Noelle H enry as
a teacher?
A. Well, as I know her as a teacher, she tau g h t
h e r c lasses and she did h e r class w ork and she co
operated [50] in all school drives, she w as asked to
92
partic ipate in, and she helped a lot. She helped on the
ex tra -cu rricu la r activ ity organizations.
Q. How would you ra te her as a teach er?
A'. I would ra te h e r among the b est th a t w ere a t
McCloud a t th a t p articu la r time.
Q. Now, to your knowledge, w as M rs. H enry—did
M rs. H enry receive a con tract to teach for 1962-63
y ear?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Did she receive a con trac t to—
M r. M aynard:
If it p lease the C ourt, we object to th is as rep e ti
tious.
The Court:
It does seem to be a bit repetitious. Everybody
agrees that she was not reem ployed. T here is no con
tro v ersy about tha t.
Mr. M aynard:
C ertain ly not on our p a rt, Your Honor.
Mr. Bell:
All righ t, Y our Honor.
D irect Exam ination (C ontinuing):
By Mr. Bell:
jQ. W hen you p rep ared the lis t of recom m enda
tions, and I guess the lis t of te ach e rs you did not
recom m end, w hat did you do w ith it?
A. I passed it to the Supervisor.
[51] Q. What does the Supervisor do with the list
as fa r as you know?
93
A. I do not know w hat she does w ith the list.
Q. Does she ever have any conferences or dis
cussions about your action on the recom m endations
taken?
A. Yes.
Q. In your experience, have any of your recom
m endations ever been questioned by the Supervisor?
A. Not to my rem em berance.
Q. How do you lea rn w hether or not the teach ers
tha t you have recom m ended a re h ired by the B oard
for the ensuing y ear? How do you get th is inform a
tion?
A. W ell I pass the lis t to the Supervisor. If she
doesn’t inform me th a t a te ach e r isn ’t h ired , well, I
un d ers tan d th a t th a t teach e r will be h ired. I am usual
ly inform ed by the Supervisor.
*Q. How did you receive the inform ation th a t M rs.
H enry would not be re tu rn ed to your school for the
1962-63 school year?
A. M rs. H enry talked to m e about it. She ques
tioned me about it.
Q. And, you hadn ’t any prio r knowledge th a t she
w asn’t going to be h ired before M rs. H enry talked to
you?
A. I had not a t th a t time.
[521 Q. Did you m ake any reason , did you know
w hat the reasons w ere why she hadn ’t be h ired?
A. No, I didn’t.
©. Would you briefly—review the ex tra -cu rricu la r
activ ities th a t M rs. H enry w as e ither assigned to by
you or volunteered for?
A. The la s t y ea r th a t she worked a t McCloud, she
w as a Den M other for the Cub Scouts which w as a1
dutv assigned to her.
94
She w as the adv isor of the Tri Hi-Y Club. She was
advisor w hen I becam e P rin cip al for the school, so
I don’t know w hether she vo lunteered or w as assigned.
She w as S ec re ta ry of the P . T. A. which w as a volun
ta ry duty.
Q. In your opinion, did she perform these duties
in a sa tisfac to ry fashion, these ex tra -cu rricu la r
duties?
A. Well, yes, she got resu lts from all the clubs she
w orked with.
|Q. F rom your estim ate , would you say th a t M rs.
H enry put in the average am ount of tim e or m ore
th an average , or less th an average in reg a rd to these
ex tra-cu rricu lar activ ities?
[53] A. I w an t to question. Do you m ean the average
teach e r or the averag e teacher a t th a t school a t th a t
time?
Q. At th a t time.
A. Well, it w as m ore th an average .
Q. W hen M rs. H enry didn’t re tu rn to you, did you
receive ano ther teacher? W as another teach er as
signed to you in h e r place?
A. I don’t know if she was assigned in her place
or not. I received ano ther teach er. I cannot say they
assigned h er to h e r place.
Q. Why can ’t you say tha t?
A. Well, I have no actual proof anym ore th an any
teacher th a t comes in.
Q. W as M rs. H enry teach ing a p a rticu la r grade
w hen she taugh t?
A. Yes.
|Q. W hat one?
A. Third.
Q. W as the new teach e r teach ing th a t grade?
95
A. She w as teaching the first, second and th ird .
She taught the th ird too.
Q. I take it th is next y e a r you w ere in a d ifferent
school?
A. I w ent back to the sam e school, but since the
[54] school had begun to consolidate, a num ber, of
teachers w ent to ano ther school. I w as left w ith one
teach e r for the first, second and th ird , th a t is why one
te ach e r had to take th ree grades.
Q. W hat is th a t teach e r’s nam e?
A. G eorgia R ichardson.
Q. Are you fam iliar w ith the teaching experience
she had p rio r to coming to you?
A. I am not fam iliar w ith the exact amount. I am
not fam ilar w ith the exac t am ount.
)Q. Can you tell me how much experience she had?
A. She is a re la tive ly new teacher in the teach ing
field.
Q. Would it be one or—Strike th a t please.
Mr. Bell:
We have no fu rth e r questions of th is w itness.
The Court:
You m ay cross exam ine.
Mr. M aynard:
We have no questions, Y our Honor.
The Court:
You m ay stand down.
(W itness excused.)
[55*, The Court:
You m ay call your nex t w itness.
96
Mr. Bell:
We call M rs. G eraldine W hite.
[56] GERALDINE WHITE, the w itness having been
duly sw orn in th is case, testified as follows:
D irect Exam ination.
By Mr. Bell:
Q. Will you s ta te your full nam e?
A. My nam e is G eraldine W hite.
Q. And your Residence?
A. My residence is 725 F lo rida S treet, iClarksdale,
M ississippi.
Q. And your race?
A. W hat?
Q. W hat is your race?
A. Negro. I am an A m erican Negro.
Q. M rs. W hite, w ere you subpoeanaed to come here
and testify?
A. Yes, I w as subpoeanaed to appear here th is
m orning.
Q. All right, te ll the Court w h a t your occupation
is?
A. I am em ployed as Gen Supervisor of the N egro
Schools of Coahoma County, M ississippi.
Q. Now, how long have you held th is position?
A. Since Ju ly 1, 1960.
I w ent as a ss is tan t Supervisor Ju ly 1, 1960 and I
assumed full duties Ja n u a ry 1, 1961.
[57] Q. Did you have any previous experience in
the field of education p rio r to th a t time?
A. Yes, I served n ineteen y e a rs as Supervisor of
P ano la School D istrict, M ississippi.
97
|Q. Now, how m any schools a re you Supervisor of?
A. There a re ten schools in the Coahoma County
School System.
Q. A pproxim ately how m any teachers?
A. We have 161 tha t is including the Principals.
Q. Now, a re these schools—w hat is the race of
the children who a re assigned to th is system ?
A. They a re A m erican Negro children.
Q. W hat is the race?
A. A m erican N egroes.
Q. In your capacity as the Supervisor, have you
occasion to pass on the recom m endations of teachers
m ade by the P rincipals in your schools?
A. Yes, the p rinc ipals b ring in th e ir recom m enda
tions and I accept them.
Q. How frequently is th is done?
A. T hat is done each y ear before school closes.
(Q. I see. Are you fam iliar w ith M r. C harles Ball?
A. I am.
[58] Q. Is he employed in the school system ?
A. He is employed in the Coahom a County School
system .
Q. He is Principal of the Lulu Elementary School?
A. He is P rin c ip a l of the Lulu E lem entary School.
Q. H ad he held any position p rio r to tha t?
A. Yes.
|Q. W here?
A. At the McCloud School a t th a t tim e it w as a J r .
High School.
Q. Are you fam iliar w ith w hether or not teaching
at the McCloud School, there was a Mrs. Noelle, Henry?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you reca ll w hether or not she w as teaching
in th a t school w hen you came into the system ?
98
A. She w as teaching then, w hen I came in to the
Coahom a County System.
Q. Do you reca ll w hether or not the P rincipal, Mr.
Ball, had M rs. H enry among those he lis ted for recom
m endation?
A. Yes.
Q. D uring each tim e?
A. Yes, h e r nam e w as on the list.
IQ. Did you ever question any of the recom m enda
tions based by Mr. Ball?
[59] A. No, I do not question the recom m enda
tions because the P rincipal discussed w hat they a re
going to do.
Q. D iscussed w ith you and w ith the te ach e rs and
w ith—
A. W ith the teachers and w ith me.
Q. And, w hen they bring in th e ir recom m endations,
they have brought it in?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have personal knowledge as to the qual
ity of teach ing perform ance of M rs. Noelle H enry?
A. Well, I observed her w hen I would go to the
school and alw ays found her classes very in te restin g
and I would go in and sit and listen to how she would
teach and how the ch ildren would respond and thought
it w as v e ry quiet in h e r room and I thought she kep t
a very good classroom .
Q. A re you fam iliar w ith h e r participation in the1
ex tra cu rricu la r school activities?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. W hat is your im pression of h e r perform ance?
A. I thought she w as very good.
She w orked w ith the T ri Hi-Y and th a t always w as
ve ry good. The young people respec ted h e r very much,
99
and w hen they had to ra ise th e ir finances, they a l
ways cam e up very well w ith th e ir finances.
[60] Q. H ave you ever received any rep o rts from
the P rincipal of d iscip linary action th a t he had to take
ag a in s t M rs. H enry?
A. No.
Q. H ave you ever had to take such action?
A. No.
Q. Now, w hen the P rincipal, M r. Ball, recom
m ended M rs. H enry for the 1962-63 school year, w hat
did you do w ith th is lis t of recom m endations th a t con
ta ined h e r nam e?
A. We tu rned these recom m endations—I tu rned
them into the S uperin tendent and he brings them to
m e and I tu rn them into the Superintendent.
|Q. W hat w as the next action th a t you h eard had
been taken in re g a rd to the recom m endations of Mr.
Ball th a t M rs. H enry be given a new con trac t for
1962-63 school y ear?
A. Well, the Superin tendent inform ed me th a t the
Board did not see fit to renew M rs. H enry’s contract.
Q. On w hat occasion w ere you inform ed of this?
A. I don’t rem em ber the exac t date. Well, it w as
som etim e in the la tte r p a r t of—around the la s t of
May, I believe.
Now, I don’t rem em ber the exac t date. I w ent in for
a conference and he told me tha t the B oard [61]
did not see fit to renew M rs. H enry’s contract.
Q. Did he indicate why the B oard did not see fit
to renew h e r con tract?
A. No, he d idn’t.
O. W hat did you do w ith th is inform ation?
A. He asked me to inform M rs. Henry.
Q. Did you do tha t?
100
A. He w as my superv isor and I do w hat he says.
Q. And, did M rs. H enry m ake any request of you
in reg a rd to the co n trac t a t th a t point?
A. No, I don’t—she d idn’t, no, she didn’t m ake any
request to me for a con trac t because I had no au
tho rity to give a con tract.
Q. Would you explain to the Court w hether or not
you had any reactions or feelings w hen you learn ed
th a t the contract of M rs. H enry had been—had not
been renew ed?
Mr. Wells:
We object to th a t as being com pletely irre lev an t
and im m aterial.
The Court:
Objection is sustained.
Mr. Bell:
Ju s t one second, Your Honor,
r—
[62] D irect E xam ination (C ontinuing):
By Mr. Bell:
Q. Now, you indicated, M rs. W hite, it w as 1962-63
school y ear M r. Ball had recom m ended th a t M rs.
H enry be reh ired , w ere th e re any teach e rs th a t M r.
Ball did not recom m end for reh iring for the y e a r
1962-63 if you rem em ber?
A. T here was one person. One person w as not r e
h ired at th a t p a rticu la r school.
Q. Can you rem em ber w hether she w as recom
m ended by Mr. Ball?
A. No, she w asn’t.
Q. Do you recall why she w as not reh ired?
101
A. Yes, I do.
Q. W hat w as the reason?
A. The reason w as she—well, her conduct.
Mr. Wells:
If the Court please, we a re going to object to this
line of question. The question w as, “Will you give the
reason for which she was not re h ire d ? ”
Mr. Bell:
If th a t w as the form, I am sorry . I wanted to know;
why she w as not recom m ended by the Principal.
The Court:
That w as the form.
Mr. Bell:
We w ant to know why the P rincipal did not recom
m end her.
[63] The Court:
I th ink th a t the objections is well taken . I th ink it
was in—fa irly well in the record and the W itness
Ball who w as not re—th a t W itness Ball did not rec
ommend the teacher to be reh ired for im m oral con
duct or im proper conduct.
Mr. Bell:
Then let me ask this question to clear it up Your
Honor.
102
Mr. Wells:
Q. Did you concur in the action tak en by the P rin c i
pal in regards to these four persons not being recom
m ended?
Mr. Wells:
We object to th a t because the duties of a Supervisor
do not include the recom m ending or h iring or not
hiring of a teacher in th is system .
Mr. Bell:
She has a lread y testified th a t she does in fac t sit
down w ith the P rincipal a t the tim e they p rep a re the
recom m endations and review w ith them the action
they take and come to som e agreem ent on it.
The Court:
And she has not in h er Supervisory capacity reasons
for employing or term ination of em ploym ent and she1
has testified in addition to tha t. The objections a re
therefo re well taken .
[64] Mr. Bell:
The s ta tu te m ay not give her—-
The Court:
I have ru led on the objections.
Mr. Bell:
All righ t, Y our Honor.
D irec t E x am ina tion (C ontinuing):
103
D irect E xam ination (C ontinu ing):
By Mr. Bell:
Q. As the Supervisor of the Negro Schools, do you
know w hether or not any of the teach e rs who w ere
not recom m ended by Mr. Ball w ere assigned to other
schools in the system ?
A. Yes.
Q. How m any of such teachers?
A. I believe it w as—I think it w as four. I don’t
know. I th ink it w as four.
Q. In your experience as the Negro Supervisor, do
you reca ll any other teacher who w as recom m ended
by the P rincipal to be h ired which recom m endation
you passed on to the Superin tenden t in which the
teach e rs recommended w ere not reh ired?
A. Would you re s ta te th a t again?
Q. In your experience w ere there any other teach
ers who w ere recom m ended by the Principals to be
reh ired who w ere not reh ired by the Superintendent
and the Board?
[65] A. Well, I don’t recall any others.
Q. Ask—Ju st a m om ent, p lease.
I will ask you a few m ore questions. There is some
confusion.
Can you explain as to these te ach e rs who Mr. Ball
did not recom m end w hether or not w hat he did w as
to recommend th a t they not be re tu rn ed to his school
or w hether he recommended they not be re tu rn ed to
the system ?
A. Coahom a opera tes a school system . A teacher
in the system may be assigned to any other school.
Possibly if she doesn’t get along w ith the P rincipal
here, he doesn’t m ean th a t the person be fired, he
104
m ay be tra n sfe rred to ano ther school w here he gets
to w ork under ano ther P rincipal and gets along well
there and not do well in here, so we w ork on the
system basis.
Q. As to these people he did not recommend to
be re tu rn ed to his school under the policy of the Coa
homa B oard, they would be assigned to ano ther school,
is th a t correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And is it also correct;—
[66] The Court:
I understood him to testify that he recom m ended
th a t four of them not be re-em ployed. I understood
the w itness B all to so testify .
Mr. Bell:
Well, I had a so rt of m ixed situation of the recom
m endations he made.
The Court:
I am not su re she m ade evidential knowledge c lear
on this. Let m e ask her.
Do you know w hether in fact th a t these form s w ere,
to be term inated or be recom m ended they be tra n s
ferred?
The W itness:
He recommended th a t these people be tra n sfe rre d
to ano ther school. When—they w ere giving him a lot
of trouble in th a t p a rticu la r school and th a t was his
recom m endation.
105
The Court:
In o ther words, th is recom m endation to one was
m ade because of im m oral conduct?
The W itness:
T hat is right.
The Court:
Did he recom m end that teach e r be tran sfe rred ?
A. No, he did not. There w ere o ther teachers, I
believe, th e re w ere four of them. I th ink four of them
who w ere recom m ended. He ju s t didn’t w an t them to
w ork w ith them, to w ork w ith him, Mr. Ball.
The Court:
I understand .
[67] The Witness!:
Of course a person w ith immoral conduct w as not
considered in the system.
The Court:
You th ink one for term ination and about four as you
recall for tran sfe r?
The W itness:
That is right.
Mr. Bell:
All righ t I th ink we have no fu rth e r questions of this
w itness.
The Court:
Any cross exam ination?
106
By Mr. M aynard:
Q. How long have you been Supervisor of the
Colored Schools?
The Court:
She testified since the firs t of July, 1960. She had
been w ith the system , been Supervisor since the firs t
of January , 1961.
Mr. M aynard:
We didn’t h e a r tha t, Your Honor. Thank you.
The Court:
You m ay stand down.
(W itness is excused.)
You m ay call your next w itness.
Mr. Bell:
We call M rs. L illian Rogers Johnson.
Cross Exam ination.
307
[68] LILLIAN (ROGERS JOHNSON, the w itness
having been duly sw orn in th is case, testified as fol
lows:
D irect Exam ination.
By Mr. Bell:
Q. Would you state your full nam e to the Court?
A. L illian Rogers Johnson.
Q. Mrs. Johnson, what is your residence?
A. 519 F lo rida Avenue, C larksdale, M ississippi.
Q. And will you s ta te your race please?
A. Will I state w hat?
Q. W hat race a re you?
A. W hat race?
Q. W hat is your race?
A. Oh, I am Negro.
Q. W hat is your occupation a t the p resen t time?’
A. I am retired .
Q. W hat?
A. R etired .
Q. P rio r to your re tirem ent, w hat w as your oc
cupation?
A. I was Supervisor of schools in the Coahom a
County, M ississippi.
, |Qj. How long did you hold th a t position?
169] A. Nine y ears and four m onths.
Q. Do you have any previous teaching experience
before tha t?
A. I w as Supervisor in Sunflower County prior to
th a t tim e for tw elve y ears and t w as classroom teach
er for ten y ears, then I had one y e a r of experience
betw een the Supervisory w ork a t Sunflower and Coa
homa County when I w as on the faculty of R uss Col
lege.
108
Q. Then you have a to ta l of how much teaching
experience w ith the experience in the educational
field?
A. Classroom work plus Supervisory work?
Q. T h a t is right.
A. Forty-one and half y ears .
Q. W hen did you indicate th a t you re tired?
A. Jan u a ry 1, 1961.
Q. Now, do you reca ll w hether or not while se rv
ing as Supervisor in the Coahoma County schools you
played any p a rt in recom m ending teachers to be re
h ired from y ear to y ear?
A. Well, I would say indirectly not exactly recom
m ending them . The P rincipals recom m ended them ,
the P rincipals [70] recom m ended them . I only served
as a clearing house to the S uperin tenden t’s office. I
review ed all the recom m endations and then passed
them to the S uperin tendent of Education.
Q. Do you recall an individual nam ed C harles
Ball?
A. Yes, I do. .
Q. W as he employed in the Coahoma County Sys
tem?
K . Yes, he was.
O. In w hat capacity?
A. He was Vice P rincipal of the Lulu School and
then he w as asked to go to the McCloud School as
P rincipal because we lost a Principal th e re and we
didn’t have tim e to find ano ther and we ask him to
go to th is school as P rincipal.
O. At. th is McCloud School, do vou recall w hether
there w as a teach er by the nam e of Noelle H enry .
A. Yes.
Q. Do you w hen she cam e in th is system ?
109
A. Novem ber of 1950.
Q. D uring the time th a t you w ere Supervisor and
during the tim e tha t M rs. H enry w as teach ing in the,
Coahoma School, did you ever have an opportunity to
observe her in the classroom?
[71] A. Yes.
Q. W hat w as your opinion as to h er teach ing caipa-
abilities?
A. According to our evaluation of teach ers and
evaluation of teaching experts we thought she w as
one of the best not only in Coahoma County but in the
S tate of M ississippi.
Q. A re you fam iliar a t all w ith h e r ex tra -cu rricu la r
activity or w hether or not M rs. H enry partic ipa ted
in the ex tra-curricu lar activities?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have an opportunity—opinion as to the
quality of her perform ance in these ex tra -cu rricu la r
activ ities?
A. Well, she w as one of the best. She w as one of
the advisors of Tri Hi-Y Club and during th a t tim e
w hen they had to have funds to operate and to go to
m eetings, she w ith her Tri Hi-Yers ra ised money in
various ways. One way w as th a t they had a farm .
They had a little patch th a t one of the w hite neighbors
let them use. I believe it w as a w hite neighbor.
T hat w ay they ra ised corn and peanuts and bu tter-
beans and sold them to the people in the [72] com
m unity and so forth for raising m oney to take these
young people to the T ri Hi-Y conference.
Q. W ere they all a fte r school activ ities?
A. Yes, it w as in the sum m er when they had the
crop.
Q. Do you recall who w as the Superin tendent when
Mrs. H enry came into the system ?
n o
A. Mr. L. L. Bryson.
Q. Do you reca ll how long Mr. B ryson w as in the
school system ? I
A. Mr. B ryson served, I believe, tw elve y ears.
Q. Do you recall who w as in the school system a t
the end of tha t period of the school period?
A. At the end of Mr. B ryson’s term , P au l H unter.
Q. P au l H unter?
A. He w as sw orn in Ju ly 1, 1960.
Q, Now, did M rs. H enry receive recom m enda
tions to be reh ired by the P rincipal under whom she
worked during each of the y ears she w as signed while
you w ere Supervisor?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever have any opportunity or reason
to discipline or rep rim and Mrs. H enry yourself dur
ing th is period?
[73] A. Well, th e re w as no need to rep rim and her.
Q. Do you recall any P rincipals under which she
worked while you w ere Supervisor rep rim and ing or
disciplining her?
A. Well, I don’t know about tha t. They never re
ported any.
Q. Do you recall there w as any difficulty in getting
M rs. H enry recom m ended by the school S uperin tend
ent to be reh ired for any p a rticu la r y ear?
A. No, th e re w as a question. A question came up
reg ard in g her con tract for two different times, but
she w as given a contract.
Q. Will you te ll us w hat the firs t occasion w as when
th ere w as any difficulty?
A. The firs t occasion w as when the Superin tendent
said to m e. asked ra th e r—
I l l
Mr. Wells:
If the Court please, what Superintendent is she re
ferring to?
The W itness:
Mr. L. L. Bryson, I am sorry.
M r. Wells:
Objections to the m atte rs . Mr. Bryson is not a
p a rty to th is law suit.
[74] The Court:
I re se rv e ruling. The w itness m ay answ er.
D irect E xam ination (Continuing):
By M r. Bell:
Q. Would you indicate in addition, w hat year th is
was w hen th is problem came up?
A. I th ink it w as 1956.
Q. I see. Now will you describe w hat the nature
of the problem was?
A. Well, in 1956 the leg islature in M ississippi
passed a law requ iring all teachers to fill out affi
davits to file these b lanks listing all the organizations
to which they belonged or to which they contributed
and these b lanks had to be notorized and so th is blank
from th is teacher had h er organizations listed and
Mr. Bryson who w as Superin tendent of E ducation a t
th a t tim e—ju st about th a t time a petition w ent to the
School Board or City of Clarksdale for integration
and Mr. Bryson called me and asked m e if any of the
w ives of the m en who signed that petition w ere teach
ing in th a t county school system , and I told him,
three.
112
He asked who they w ere and I told him th e ir [75]
nam es.
Q. W as one of these nam es Mrs. Henry?
A. Yes, the next m orning he cam e down and said
you reported on the telephone th a t th ree w ives of the
m en who signed the petition a re teach e rs in the coun
ty , and I said, yes. He said I had a call about it and
I don’t know about it about th e ir being h ired and I
said, Well, Mr. Bryson, you a re the Superin tenden t
of Education and it is your responsibility to m ake a
decision, but as a, w orked in the county who’s tr ied
to be loyal to the system , I fe lt I should advise you
and I said, If I was in your place, I would not take
any steps for th ree reasons.
The first, all th ree a re good teachers. The second,
I don’t feel they ought to be held responsible for what
th e ir husbands have done, and the th ird reason, that
they have contracts signed by you and if they a re
dropped, they would go to Court and I feel a law su it
would do m ore h a rm for us and these teach e rs who
a re good teach ers th an to go on.
He ju s t sa t th e re for a while and then he left the of
fice.
[76] Q. Well, did you ind icate th a t he w as con
sidering not reh iring these teachers?
A. T hat is w hat he m eant the firs t time tha t w as
w hen th is petition w ent in.
The second time, I had been aw ay on vacation and
w hen I cam e back the contracts w ere not signed.
He said he would come down and ta lk to m e about
th is teacher, M rs. H enry’s con tract. He thought we
b e tte r give it a clause in th e re th a t this teach er can
be given two w eeks notice for any cause.
113
Q. Now, a t th a t time the contract w as w aiting to
be signed, w as the affidavit th a t you described at
tached on the back?
A. The affidavit—the leg isla tu re passed a law th a t
it w as m an dato ry th a t the affidavit be a ttached . It
w as ag ain st the law for the Superin tendent even to
sign a con tract unless the affidav it was attached.
Q. Do you recall w hether or not the affidavit which
was a ttached to Mrs. H enry’s contract listed the
N.A.A.C.P. as one of the organizations in which she
is a mem ber?
A. Yes, she had listed the N.A.A.C.P. and when he
m entioned th is clause, I said again, you a re the Super
in tenden t of E ducation and it is your responsibility
to make a decision, but I feel th a t if you th ink you
have [77] put in a clause like that in her contract,
it would be best to put it in the con trac ts of all the
teachers in the county.
Q. And, w hat action w as finally taken in reg a rd
to the clause?
A. Well, he sit down th e re and just looked into
space and he took the pin and signed the contracts.
Q. W ithout the clause?
A. W ithout the clause.
Q. W ithout the special clause?
A. Oh, yes. There w asn ’t any clause. He said it
m igh t be better, be wise to put one in there and I
said to him, if you feel you should put it in h e r con
trac t, I feel it would be be tte r to pu t it in all the con
trac ts of all the teach e rs of the county and then, he
sit th e re awhile and got up and left.
Q. D uring the time while you w ere Supervisor, did
you have occasion to review the affidavits th a t were
subm itted by the Principals th a t had been p rep ared
by the teachers?
1 1 4
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall w hether there w ere o ther indi
viduals who listed the N.A.A.C.P. as an organization
to which they belonged?
[78] A. I rem em ber th e rd w ere two or thre;e. I
am not positive if it w as one or th ree . There w ere a
few I suppose and I could say few in reg a rd s to two.
Two said they w ere form erly m em bers of the
N.A.A.C.P.
jQ. I see. Did anyone else o ther th an M rs. H enry
indicate th a t they w ere previously m em bers of the
N.A.A.C.P.
A. No.
Q. W ere th e re any other difficulties during the
period th a t you w ere N egro Supervisor in getting
M rs. H enry’s contract signed by the Superin tendent?
A. No, the last con tract th a t she had signed w hen
I w as working she had m entioned th a t she was a
m em ber of the N.A.A.C.P.
W hen Mr. H unter, Mr. P au l H unter review ed the
affidavit there w as som e discussion about her being
a m em ber of the N.A.A.C.P., and I told him she w as
a good teach e r and I said a fte r all, it is your decision
to m ake and he didn’t say anymore.
T here w asn’t m uch of a discussion about it a t th a t
time and th a t w as my la s t year w orking [79] in
th is school.
Q. W hat w as your la s t year?
A. 1959-60, I re tired Jan u a ry 1, 1961.
Q. D uring the y ears that you w ere N egro Super
visor do you recall any instances w here a teacher
w as recom m ended by the P rincipal to be re tu rned
the next y ear and not hired by the Superin tendent
and the B eard?
115
A. No.
Q. Do you reca ll any instances w here the P rinci
p a l did not recom m end any teach e r not to be re tu rn ed
to th e ir school for one reason or other?
A. Yes, th e re w ere some suggestions from some
of the P rincipals th a t they p re fe rred having som eone
else.
In o ther words, there m ight have been personality
clashes. We then recom m ended th a t the teacher to
the Superin tendent, th a t th a t teach e r be tran sfe rred
to ano ther school.
Because I recognized th a t a teach e r m ay be a failure
under one P rincipal and she is ap t to becom e a good
teacher under someone else.
[80] I feel th a t one of my obligations w as to help
to develop some of the te ach e rs th a t w ere tran sfe rred
like tha t.
Q. W ere these recom m endations that the teach ers
be sen t to ano ther school generally by seen by the
Superin tendent?
A. Yes, I m ade him understand th a t th is w as not
serious and there w as no reason th a t she could not
w ork a t another school.
I believe th a t they did succeed in o ther places es
tab lished his confidence and the recom m endations
w ere accepted.
Q. Ju s t one m om ent please, I th ink we have—ju st
one moment please.
Mr. Bell:
No fu rth er questions.
The Court:
You m ay cross exam ine.
lit)
Cross E xam ination .
By Mr. M aynard:
Q. You sta ted th a t you w ere Supervisor of the
Colored School in 1956?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I believe you said th a t they had to sign
the affidavits under the s ta te law s listing the various
organizations?
A. T hat is right.
[81] Q. And, you likewise sta ted , did you not, there
w as some question th a t arose to the p lain tiff’s recom
m endation because of being a m em ber of the
N.A.A.C.P.?
A. Yes.
Q. Did she sign the affidavit?
A. Yes.
Q. Did she list as belonging during that period
of 1957 and 1958 up to 1959.
A. She signed other affidavits w ith reference to
the organizations to which she belonged.
Q. O ther affidavits?
A. O ther affidavits.
Q. And on all those did she list the N.A.A.C.P.?
A. She did.
Q. And, firs t the B oard of E ducation and next Mr.
Bryson and Mr. H unter knew all th a t time from up
to 1956 up to the time her con tract w as not renew ed
in 1962 tha t she was adm itted a m em ber of the
N .A .A.C.P.?
A. T hat is right. That is according—
Q. Ju st answ er the question.
And at no time, did the Superin tendent or the B oard
of E ducation refuse to renew h e r contract?
117
[82] A. I don’t know about the B oard but the
S uperin tenden t did not. I s ta ted a question cam e up
about the reh iring of h er and w hen I m ade the sug
gestion—
Q. I don’t w ant you to go on, ju s t answ er the ques
tions.
W as her contract renew ed?
Mr. Bell:
Your Honor, we—-
The Court:
She was volunteering an answ er.
Mr. Bell:
I th ink she w anted to answ er yes or no.
Mr. M aynard:
Well, she can say yes or no. If Your Honor w ants
her to explain, he will ask her to.
Cross Exam ination (C ontinuing):
By Mr. Maynard:
Q. W ere the con tracts renew ed betw een the Coa
homa County System and Mrs. H enry for teaching
during the years 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61 and
1961-62, th a t is correct, isn ’t it?
A. I don’t know about 1961-62.
Q. 1959-60 w as the la s t year?
A. Yes.
Q. And despite some of the questions th a t arose,
those contracts w ere executed?
A. Yes.
118
[83] Q. One executed by Mr. B ryson and one by
Mr. H unter?
A. One w as executed by Mr. H unter during m y
term .
Q. It was advised th a t the plain tiff was a m em ber
of the N.A.A.C.P. and discussed w ith you?
A. Yes, and—
Q. Would you ju s t answ er the question.
The W itness:
M ay I explain.
The Court:
Go ahead.
The W itness:
There w as a discussion about it because she had
listed the N.A.A.C.P. on th is affidavit th a t w as a t
tached to her contract.
She was a m em ber of several organizations, so the
affidav it d idn’t hold all the organizations and she put
a t the bottom “ over” and on the back of th a t affidavit
w as th is N.A.A.C.P.
W hen Mr. H unter saw th a t he m ade some rem ark
lile, “Oh, my goodness,” because th e re had been a
question about h er belonging to the N.A.A.C.P., and
w hen he saw th is on there , I m ade the s ta tem en t to
him, th a t I m ade to Mr. Bryson. I said, “She w as not
doing any w ork—she w asn ’t bringing the N.A.A.C.P.
[84] into her school w ork and she w as a good teach
er and I didn’t think he should drop her.
Q'. Did he sign the contract?
A. Yes.
119
Q. And the B oard of E ducation approved the con
trac t?
A. I guess they did. I never did m eet the Board.
jQ. Excuse me, Your Honor.
D uring your whole tim e as Superviseor, do you know
of any incidents w here any teachers or principal was
not re-em ployed because of activ ities w ithin thq
N.A.A.C.P.?
A. No
Mr. M aynard:
No fu rth e r questions.
The Court:
Any fu rth e r questions on red irect?
Mr. Bell:
I am sorry , I m issed the la s t answ er.
The Court:
He asked did anyone principal or teach e r been
term inated because of the activ ities w ith the
N.A.A.C.P?
Mr. Bell:
I am sorry . We object to th a t She certa in ly wouldn’t
know what the Board did. We object to it. It is limited
to h e r knowledge.
The Court:
I re se rv e ru ling on the objection.
120
[83] The W itness:
I don’t know. I don’t know w hat I answ ered to th e
question, but th e re w as a m ortifying situation there:
th a t needed to be brought out.
I don’t know. I would like to be advised.
Mr. Bell:
J u s t one second, p lease m a’am.
I th ink we have no fu rth e r questions.
The Court:
A nything fu rth er w ith th is w itness?
M r. M aynard:
No, sir, Y our Honor.
The Court:
You m ay stand down.
(W itness excused.)
You m ay call your next w itness p lease.
Mr. Bell:
M ay we have ju s t a few m inutes, Your Honor?
The Court:
All right.
Mr. Bell:
I am a little concerned about the s ta te of the record
on the point th a t Mr. Ball testified to. As to w hat he
w as recom m ending as fa r as these teach e rs a re con
cerned.
121
He did not recom m end them to be re tu rn ed to his
school, and I th ink it w as clarified by M rs. W hite
[86] who ind icated to one—that one person, he
recom m ended th a t the person not be re tu rn ed to thei
school system , while th ree—
The Court:
H er recollection w as four.
Mr. M aynard:
Four not recom m ended.
The Court:
Four not to be recom m ended to the school and one
not to be recom m ended because of im m oral conduct
th a t w as her testim ony as I understood it.
Mr. Bell:
W hile Mr. Ball recom m ended there w ere four and
th ree he did not recom m end, th ree of them w ere as
signed to ano ther school and it is my understand ing
th a t is w hat actually happened th e re w ith the four
teachers.
He did not recom m end four of them . One of them,
w as he had a record because of immoral conduct—
not to be re tu rn ed to the system and th ree because
of the problem s he w as having w ith them. They werei
assigned to ano ther school as he recom m ended.
And, because th e re w as little—a little conflict in
th is record, I think it will be necessa ry to b ring Mr.
Ball back and get th is s tra ig h ten ed out [87] unless
M rs. W hite’s version as fa r as the recommendations
a re concerned w asn’t accurate .
122
The Court:
If you would like to reca ll the W itness Ball, and
if th e re is any questions in your m inds, reca ll him
and get it c leared up.
Mr. Bell:
All righ t. We recall Mr. Ball.
[88] CHARLES H. BALL .(R ecalled .)
The w itness resum es the stand.
The Court:
Let me see if I can ’t get the m a tte r c leared .
You testified th a t you had uniform ly declared w hen
you w ere called to recommend the teachers for em
ploym ent or not th a t you had uniform ly recom m ended
them for re-em ployent w ith the exception of four?
The W itness:
Yes, sir, I did.
The Court:
And, as I understood, you said you did not recom
m end four?
The W itness:
Now, th is exception—
The Court:
Wait a m inute. We will get to tha t.
You did not recom m end them ?
123
The W itness:
I did not recommend four.
The Court:
W hat did you recom m end about them?
The W itness:
I recom m ended th a t they be tra n s fe rre d to another
school.
The Court:
All four of them?
The W itness:
Yes, sir.
[89] The Court:
Even the one you said w as guilty of im m oral con
duct?
The W itness:
I recom m ended she be tra n s fe rre d from the McCloud
School.
I didn’t m ake any type of recom m endation as to
w here she should go to work.
The Court:
If you’d like to ask questions, you m ay do so, Mr.
Bell. |
Mr. Brown:
Pardon me, Y our Honor, m ay I have your indul
gence please?
The Court:
All right.
124
Mr. Bell:
As to these four te ach e rs th a t you recom m ended
not be re tu rn ed to your school, w ere any of the four
assigned back to your school?
The W itness:
No.
The Court: >
About these four you testified one w as not re-em
ployed and th ree w ere assigned to ano ther school?
The W itness:
That is right.
The Court:
Now, a re we all c lear on tha t?
Mr. Bell:
I hope so, Your Honor?
The Court:
A nything fu rth er w ith th is w itness?
[90] M r. Bell:
I th ink not, Your Honor.
The Court:
F o r the D efendant’s side?
Mr. M aynard:
No, Your Honor, we have none.
125
The Court:
You m ay stand down.
(W itness excused.)
Call your next w itness:
Mr. Bell:
We would like to call as our nex t w itness, an ad
verse one, the Superin tendent of schools, Mr. P au l
H unter.
[91] PAUL M. HUNTER, (A dverse W itness), the
w itness having been duly sw orn in th is case, testified
as follows:
D irect Exam ination.
By Mr. Bell:
Q. Would you s ta te your full name p lease?
A. P au l M. H unter.
Q. And your residence?
A. 411 M aple S treet, C larksdale, M ississippi
Q. And you a re a m em ber of w hat race?
A. The w hite race.
Q. And w hat is your occupation?
A. County S uperin tendent of Education of Coahoma
County, M ississippi.
Q. How long have held th a t position?
A. Since Ja n u a ry 4, 1960.
Q. How do you obtained th a t position?
A. By election.
Q. In w hat length—w hat is the length of your term
of office?
120
A. Four years.
Q. W hen you re tu rn for election, do you cam paign
as [92] o ther elected officials?
[92] A. I did at th a t time.
Q. W hen you w ere cam paigning for election, th a t
w as in w hat year?
A. 1959.
Q. So your te rm would be expiring a t the end of
this y ear?
A. T hat is correct.
Q. In your cam paign for elections in 1959, w hat
was your position on the segregation in schools?
Mr. W ells:
We object, if the Court p lease, for the reason that
th e re is no allegation in th is com plaint concerning
th is S uperin tendent’s position, a t the tim e he ran for
office or while he w as in the office.
The Court:
The question of seg regation is not involved in any
of the pleadings of the case.
Mr. Bell:
Well, it is involved in th is fashion, Your Honor, th a t
the person who is try ing to determ ine on the issues
as to w hether the basis for not h iring w as valid
tow ard the sole m em ber of the N.A.A.C.P. in the school
system as far as the record shows now.
And, the N.A.A.C.P., the record also indicates, has
a policy of opposing to the segregation in the [93]
school and for th a t reason it is re lev an t to determ ine
w hether or not in his cam paign for elections w hat his
position w as—by him who did not recom m end th is
plaintiff.
127
I t is re lev an t to determ ine w hether or not he took a
position on this.
The Court:
The record thus fa r ind icates she was recom m ended
for re-em ploym ent by th is v e ry man.
Mr. Bell:
On th a t—this over-all work, I w as bringing in the
record . In the pleadings, there is some confusion as
to w hether he did or not, and I would like to be ac
cura te .
The Court:
I th ink in view of the record th a t has been m ade
so fa r th a t he did in fac t recom m end her for re-em
ploym ent and th a t the Board failed to re-em ploy her.
Mr. W ells:
If the Court please, m ay I say som ething about th is
so the Court will not be m islead. I don’t know th a t
there is any testim ony in the record th a t th is w itness
actually recom m ended her.
There is some testim ony th a t the p lain tiff w as told
th a t the B-oard didn’t see fit to renew h er contract.
I do not think th a t the record perhaps revealed posi
tively, he recom m ended it.
[94] The Court:
It is here in th a t regard .
Mr. Wells:
His position and his answ er will show th a t he did
not recom m end her, but my objection goes to his—
128
The Court:
A llegations and the p leadings. I understand .
This bill, this suit charges th a t the B oard not the
Superin tendent, th a t the B oard failed and refused to
offer her a con tract by reason of the Civil R ights
Activity in associations designed to end rac ia l dis
crim ination engaged in by h e r and her husband and
re fe rs to the in tegration of the schools.
But, the charges in th is bill go to the Board of
T rustees and not to th is Superin tendent of Education,
and th e re is no allegation in th is bill—in th is su it a t
all charging th a t he has done anything because of her
activ ities.
Mr. Wells:
Those charges w ere m ade to the B oard of T rustees
and we subm it because of th a t he is not responsible.
The Court:
He is charged w ith m aking recom m endations to the
persons.
Mr. W ells:
He is charged by the law in [95] m aking the rec
om m endation to the Board, yes, sir.
The Court:
I reserv e ruling and the w itness m ay answ er.
The W itness: ..................
Yes.
129
D irect E xam ination (C ontinuing):
By Mr. Bell:
Q. And, during the course of your cam paign for
election w hat w as your position tow ard segregation
of schools?
A. I—it d idn’t en ter into the cam paign in any way.
Q. D uring the course of your running for election,
did you get out in the com m unity of Coahoma County
and trav e l around and m eet the people in the usual
fashion?
A. I trav e led over p rac tica lly all of the county,
Q. Based on your experience, w hat w as the com
m unity opinion in Coahoma County?
Mr. Wells:
We object to tha t, Your Honor.
The Court:
Objection sustained.
D irect Exam ination (Continuing):
By Mr. Bell:
Q. How m any schools a re there in th a t county?
A. There a re eleven.
[96] Q. Are som e of these schools for N egroes and
some for w hites?
A. That is right.
Q. Approxim ately how m any teach ers in the to ta l
system?
A. A pproxim ately two hundred.
■Q. A re some of these teach e rs N egroes and some
of them w hites?
A. T hat is correct.
130
Q. And is i t co rrect, a ll the w hite teachers teach
in the w hite schools and all the N egroes teach in the
N egroes’ schools?
A. T hat is correct.
Q. W hat is your professional opinion as to segre
gation in the schools as p resen tly carried?
Mr. Wells:
We object to tha t, please.
The Court:
The objection is sustained .
D irec t E xam ination (C ontinuing):
By Mr. Bell:
Q. Did you have any personal contact w ith the
plaintiff, Noelle H enry while she w as teaching?
A. Well, I didn’t have a conversation w ith her. I
passed th rough her room on a couple of occasions
while school w as in session.
[97] Q. Do you have any knowledge of her ex
perience as a teacher?
A. I know she w as or had been in the Coahoma
County system for eleven years. She w as in it for
eleven years.
Q. Do you have any knowledge of h er educational
background?
A. Yes, I know she had a degree, I w asn’t certain
w hether it w as a four v ear college degree.
Q. And, do you have any knowledge of the e x tra
curricu lar activ ities in which she w as engaged during
th a t period?
A. I did.
131
Q. Does th a t ex tra-curricu lar activ ity m ean any
thing?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you m ake any check or investigation to
determ ine w hether she w as engaged in any e x tra
cu rricu lar activities?
A. I didn’t,
Q. At the end of 1961-62 school year, did M rs.
H enry subm it to you any resignation or anything
th a t said she would not be available for the 1962-63
school year?
A. Nope.
[98] Q. Did you p rep a re a lis t of the teach ers th a t
you w ere going to recom m end to the B oard to be
h ired for the 1962-63 school year?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you have a copy of th a t list?
A. I don’t.
Mr. M aynard:
It is in the m inutes.
Ju s t a second, Your Honor, we can simplify th a t
if you w an t the m inute book.
The W itness:
It is tow ards the front, Mr. Wells.
The Court:
Would you like an opportunity to exam ine th is be
fore you question the w itness about th is?
Mr. Bell:
Probably, Your Honor, th a t we ask the Board-—
132
The Court:
I asked you if you needed time to before you in te r
roga te the w itness about it.
Mr. Bell:
Yes, sir.
The Court:
Court is in recess until two o’clock.
Mr. Bell:
Thank you.
(W hereupon a t eleven fifty o’clock A. M. Court re
cessed until two o’clock P.M .)
[100] (W hereupon Court resum ed a fte r recess a t
two o’clock P. M.)
PAUL M. HUNTER, (Still on s tan d ).
D irect E xam ination (Continuing):
By Mr. Bell:
Q. Now, M r. H unter, as the Superintendent of
Schools you a re under the statu tes of M ississippi an
officer of the B oard of Education, are you not?
A. That is correct. I am executive secre tary of the
B oard of Education.
Q. And, you indicated th a t you a re an elected of
ficial?
A. Correct.
133
Q. W ere you aw are of, did you le a rn a fte r you be
came S uperin tendent that Noelle H enry w as a mem
ber of the N.A.A.C.P.?
A, Well, it has been common knowledge for a good
m any years. I thought she w as and it w as called to
my atten tion a t the the outset for w hen I took office
and also w hen the con tracts came up for renew al in
the spring of 1960.
I w as appointed Superin tendent and on her affidavit
she had th a t she w as a m em ber of the N.A.A.C.P.,
and I checked the affidavits and found th a t she had
been a m em ber p rio r to m y tak ing office and she had
listed it for all the years except for the final one which
she [101] taugh t for 1961 or 1962.
Q. W ere you also aw are or learned of Mr. H enry’s
leadersh ip in N.A.A.C.P.?
A. T hat was common knowledge, it w as in the
papers.
Q. Would you ag ree for the la st y ea r or two or
th ree the activities of the N.A.A.C.P. particu larly the
Coahoma activ ity has increased a g rea t deal?
A. That is correct.
Q. And, Mr. H enry is the leader or ag itator of
these activ ities?
A. That is a m a tte r of public record th rough the
new spapers.
Q. Now, as an elected official, isn’t it co rrec t that
you have a duty to rep resen t the electors of Coahom a
County to the best of your obligation, to the best of
your ability?
A. T hat is right.
Q. Isn ’t it also tru e th a t the electors, the persons
actually doing the voting in Coahoma require contin
uation of the seg rega ted schools?
134
Mr. Wells:
Objection to tha t. It calls for a conclusion from this
w itness asking him w hat is the feeling of the people.
[102] The Court:
I can’t see this has anything to do w ith it. Why do
you consider it a p roper question?
Mr. Bell:
I think, Your Honor, it is going to be necessary for
us to get into the record w hat everybody knows in re
gards to segregation and the desire of the electors in
Coahoma County to m ain ta in segregation .
The effect th a t it has on the e lected officials and
w hether or not th is w as an influencing fac to r in this
very unusual situation w here a teach e r w as a m em
ber—was not reh ired a fte r having been recom m ended
by h e r principal.
Now, in the answ ers in the pleadings, th is has not
been made clear. We have to go to it to the best of our
ability to determ ine what the situation is.
The Court:
I can’t see it has probable value on the issues, but I
reserv e ru ling on the question.
The w itness m ay answ er the question if he knows
the answ er.
[103] The W itness:
Would you s ta te the question again?
D irect Exam ination (Continuing):
By Mr. Bell:
Q. We asked if it w asn’t a fact th a t the electors of
Coahoma County are in favor of continuing the seg re
gating of the schools in the county?
135
A. On this basis, not knowing everybody’s mind on
this, I would add I know people of both races who
have d ifferen t answ ers.
Q. W ell th a t is very in teresting , but it did not
answ er the question.
Isn’t it correct th a t overwhelm ing num bers not ju s t
peoplej of both races, but people who do the, who ac tu
ally do the voting in Coahoma County, they a re over
whelming to m ain ta in segregation?
A. I haven’t asked them the question, n e ither has
it been reported to m e.
Q. Then, is your answ er th a t you don’t know w hat
the views of the people of Coahoma County a re as fa r
as seg rega ting schools is concerned?
A. I know some of them and not all of them, bu t
not when you ask for the views of everybody.
[104] Q. I didn’t ask for the views of everybody.
A. You asked for the the m ajority .
Q. As to the m ajority , I asked w hat the overwhelm
ing which I im agine you would know as to the m ajori
ty of the persons doing the electing in Coahoma Coun
ty a re in favor of m ain ta in ing segregation?
Mr. Wells:
We a re in no way p repared to show th a t or w hat the
feeling of the people would be a influencing or would
effect th is w itness’s recom m endation for teachers .
I subm it perhaps it would be pertinen t and would
be com petent to in te rro g a te th is w itness as to w hether
or not his act in recom m ending would be governed or
persuaded by the people.
I think we are asking him to reach a conclusion as
to w hat people generally think about it in public
schools w hich is s tric tly a conclusion in the absence
of effecting his judgm ent or decision.
138
[107] D irect Exam ination (Continuing):
By Mr. Bell:
Q. Mr. H unter, do you have personal knowledge of
the fac t th a t in 1954 the Suprem e Court ind icated th a t
the seg regated schools a re unconstitutional?
A. T hat is right.
Q. H ave you ever brought th a t to the a tten tion of
the Board?
Mr. Wells:
Counsel is certain ly going fa r afield.
The Court:
I th ink the objection is well taken , sustained.
Mr. Bell:
We won’t push, Your Honor.
D irect E xam ination (C ontinuing);
By Mr. Bell:
Q. Now, as an elected rep resen tive of the people
as fa r as the public schools a re concerned, if you w ere
able to know w hat the ir feelings w ere in re g a rd to
Civil R ights fo r the N egroes and desegregation of the
schools in or a t th is p a rticu la r tim e it would be your
duty to try to carry out the desire of the m ajority in
tha t, is th a t correct?
A. Well,—
Mr. Wells:
We object to tha t. The duties of th is m an a re fixed
by the statute.
139
[108] M r. Bell:
The sam e thing, Your Honor.
Mr. Wells:
The question he ask was, “if you did know w hat
the feeling of the m a jo rity vo ters w ere and if th a t
w as they w ere ag a in st in tegrating schools, then would
it be your duty to carry out th e ir wishs?
The duties of this m an a re fixed by the sta tu te , if
the Court please.
The Court:
T hat objection seem s to be well taken. It sus
tained.
D irec t Exam ination (C ontinuing):
By Mr. Bell:
Q. As to your duties under the various s ta tu te s of
the S tate of M ississippi, isn ’t it a fac t th a t th e re is no
s ta tu te in the Shute of M ississippi that perm its you
to in itia te or tak e any action tow ard desegregation of
the Coahoma County?
Mr. Wells:
Objection to tha t, because th e re is nothing in th is
law suit even rem otely touching the questions of or
even a complaint th a t th is defendant h a sn ’t taken
som e action to desegregate the schools of Coahoma
County.
Mr. Bell:
I don’t—
140
[109] The Court:
Why a re you asking this, w hen th is Court can take
judicial notice of the s ta tu te of the S tate of M issis
sippi?
Mr. Bell:
Well, I am still try ing to place on the record, Your
Honor.
The Court:
Why don’t you ask th is w itness why he failed to re
commend the plaintiff?
Mr. Bell:
I th ink th a t is part of the o ther side’s case. I would
prefer they do it if they w ant to.
I th ink we do know he failed to recommend her and
try —tried to m ake the record show th a t to the strong
est ex ten t possible.
The Court:
If you asked him why he failed to recom m end her
or if he failed to recom m end her because she w as a
m ember of the N.A.A.C.P?
Mr. Bell:
Our position is th a t he did and th a t th is kind of ques
tion resu lted .
The Court:
Did you fail to recommend the plain tiff because she
w as a m em ber of the N.A.A.C.P.?
The W itness:
I did not.
141
The Court:
Why did you take such action?
The W itness:
Because of the activities th a t [110] she and her
husband w ere engaged w ere highly controversial.
Do you w ant to know w hat it is?
The Court:
Yes.
The W itness:
.Number one I felt it would be a bad influence on
the children and other teachers. C hildren a re imi
ta to rs . W hen they see an adult do som ething, then
they think it is a lright for them .
In M arch of la s t year, her husband w as convicted
of a m orals charge.
Mr. Bell:
Objection, we a re objecting.
The Court:
Objection is overruled.
Mr. Bell:
The reason for the objection to the charge in the
conviction is th a t the w itness w ants to testify to is one
of a num ber of such charges or convictions of one so rt
or other. All of which a re still in litigation. All of which
the defendant has m aintained in th a t litigation are
p a rt and parcel of the sam e type of harassm ent tha t
resu lted in her losing her job.
I think it is en tire ly irre lev an t for the purpose of this
case.
The W itness:
All of it?
The Court:
I th ink it goes back to the h e a rt of the case. Your ob
jection is overruled.
[I ll] I am in te rested in why he failed to recom
m end the plain tiff and I asked him to continue to say
it.
The Court:
You got to the place w here the conviction entered
into the p icture.
The W itness:
He w as convicted on a moral charge involving a
teenager. That w as Num ber one.
Num ber two, in A pril of 1962 a libel suit w as filed
by the Chief of Police of C larksdale and the County
A ttorney of Coahom a against h er husband A aron
Henry.
I w as told by a reliable au thority th a t a suit would
be instiga ted for setting aside property to Noelle
H enry by h er husband to avoid paym ent on the libel
charge. If the suit w as successful, she would be in
volved.
Those a re the th ree m ain reasons I stated th a t I
felt it would be a bad resu lt for the children in which
she cam e in contact because they a re im itators.
M r. Bell:
Ju s t one moment, please.
The Court:
You may continue w ith your exam ination.
142
143
Mrs. M orris:
If your Honor please, I would like to check these
dates th a t these things happened. May I have a few
m om ents?
[112] The Court:
I didn’t understand your question.
M rs. M orris:
I am asking for a few m inutes to check these dates.
The Court:
Are you asking for a recess?
Mrs. M orris:
Ju s t for five m inutes.
The Court:
Court is in recess until two th irty .
(W hereupon a t two ten o’clock P. M. Court w as
recessed until two th irty P . M.)
[113] (W hereupon a t two th ir ty P . M. Court recon
vened a fte r recess)
The Court:
You may be seated .
D irect Exam ination (Continuing):
By Mr. Bell:
' Q. You indicated th a t you did not recommend
Mrs. H enry to be reh ired and you based th is on the
th ree d ifferen t facto rs: A m oral charge in M arch,
1962, a libel suit in April, 1962 in which you h eard
144
there w as a possible suit against M rs. H enry for
fraudulent conveyance, is th a t correct?
A. I did not recom m end her and I w as told th a t
the fraudu len t conveyance had been m ade and a suit
would be filed by a reliab le source.
I also followed—I would follow the same policy re
gardless of who the teach er m igh t be.
Q. Well, as to the firs t conviction of M arch, 1962,
a re you aw are th a t th a t charge, the conviction was in
the J . P . Court?
A. T hat is correct.
Q'. A re you also aw are th e re w as an appeal of a
new tr ia l of record?
A. T hat is right. He w as found guilty.
[114] Q. As a m atter of fact, you had tak en action
prior to being told about th a t tria l?
A. W hat I read in the new spaper, he w as tried and
convicted and he as fa r as we go—
Q. He appealed and had a new trial?
A. I never heard anything about a new tria l.
Q. You read in the pap er about the March, 1962
tria l th a t A aron Henry, husband of the plaintiff, had
been convicted of a m oral charge.
A. T hat is right.
Q. Did you find out w hat the n a tu re of the Court
was w here he had been convicted?
A. I knew the n a tu re of the Court?
Q. W hat was the n a tu re?
A. T hat w as the Justice of the Peace Court.
Q. Do you know w hether or not Dr. H enry had a
ju ry in th a t Court?
A. I didn’t know. I didn’t bo ther to find out. He
w as convicted.
145
Q. And, you acted w ithout checking or finding out
w ith the attorneys, w ith anybody w hether he might
have a tr ia l la te r on, is th a t right?
A, I did not. W hen a m an gets involved in a con
tro v ers ia l issue and—I th ink it would effect his wife.
[115] Q. Would you explain?
A. W hen a m an gets involved w ith a m orals
charge, his wife as a teach e r in the school there ,
definitely th is case reflects on her and on the children
w ith which she is teaching.
Q. And, therefo re on this, it didn’t m ake a d iffer
ence w hether he w as convicted, if he hadn’t m ade
the charge or if he had m ade it.?
A. I don’t know. He w as convicted and I based my
decision on tha t.
Q. Then, you indicated th a t you acted before or
w ithout or before you learned w ithout knowledge
th e re would be a new tria l a t which tim e the defend
an t would have an opportunity to have a ju ry and all
the obligations of the constitution?
Mr. Wells:
Objection, as the Court can take jud icia l notice,
This m an could have a ju ry in the Justice of the
P eace Court by asking for it. It w as a m isdem eanor.
The Court:
T hat is true, the Court can take [116] judicial
notice on it.
This would be a tr ia l in the scope of the Circuit
Court depending upon the county w here the Justice
tria l was held. I reserve ruling on it.
The w itness m ay answ er.
And I can m ake judicial note by the s ta tu te of J. P .
Court th a t it is a Court of record .
146
Mr. Bell:
I th ink we maintain—no, we a re m ainly concerned
w hether or not the Superin tendent bothered to find
out any of th is inform ation.
The W itness:
That is correct.
D irect Exam ination (C ontinuing):
B-y M r. Bell:
Q. Then in other words, Mr. Superintendent, you
took—you m ade your decision w ithout knowledge of
the law concerned in the Justice of the P eace Court
and w ithout knowledge of the type of tr ia l he would
have if convicted in the Ju stice of the Peace Court?
A. I still—it w as not my place, it was not m y
place to determ ine the law. I didn’t know th a t he had
been convicted and I had no idea th a t he was.
It w asn ’t my place to know.
Q. Did you also understand there w as a ju ry or
not a ju ry in th a t Court?
[117] A. I did not know. It is still a Court of law.
Q. And, you knew of the conviction—you acted on
the conviction w ithout knowledge th a t he was going
to appeal or not to appeal?
A. Do you m ean my action?
Q. Now, as m a tte r of fact, there w as an appeal of
th a t conviction?
A. I knew then, not until that time.
Q. Did you now, as a m a tte r of fact, th a t a t one
stage of th is case it w ent to the Suprem e Court of
the State of M ississippi?
A. T hat is correct.
147
Q. Did you understand the descision of the S tate
of M ississippi in reg a rd to th is case?
A. I .know I read it in the papers.
Q. You understood th a t the firs t decision of the
S tate of M ississippi Suprem e Court w as a rev e rsa l
of th is decision?
A. T hat is right.
Q. At that time w hen—Did you also check to find
out th a t the libel charge w as as a m a tte r of fac t based
on a statem ent by D r. H enry about the conduct of the
police who arrested him on the charge on the m oral
[118] offense?
A. I knew what I read in the papers and it w as
basically tha t.
Q. Did you try to check the charge on fraudulent
conveyance of property, w as it also based on the libel
suit?
A. I w as told by good authority th a t the convey
ance had been m ade and I w as not told th a t it avoided
service, but I assum ed it was.
Q. Would you nam e th a t good authority?
A. One of the attorneys, I don’t rem em ber exactly,
e ither Mr. P o rte r or Mr. Luckett
Q. It w as one of the atto rneys th a t w as going to
rep resen t him in the libel case?
A. No, sir. The one who w as going to file the
fraudulen t conveyance charges.
Q. They were p riva te atto rneys for private indi
viduals?
A. That is right.
Qj. Then th e ir reason for basing—your reason w as
based on th is for not recom m ending her?
A. And, your fa ilure to recom m end M rs. H enry
grew out of the sam e situation?
148
A. Well, as l s ta ted on the th ree things, that is
correct.
[119] Q. And, you indicated knowledge th a t th is
m atte r had been appealed to the Supreme C ourt of
the S tate of M ississippi?
A. That appeal w as sometime a fte r I m ade my de
cision.
Q. T hat is right. At leas t a t one point, the f irs t de
cision of the S tate Supreme Court was reversed of
this conviction.
A. I rem em ber read ing th a t in the papers.
Q. At th a t point, would you ag ree th a t th is con
viction been reversed and all th ree points on w hich I—
Mr. W ells:
I object.
Mr. Bell:
I s trike the la s t question.
The Court:
All right.
Q. W hen you learn ed the s ta te reversed the con
viction of A aron Henry, w ith your knowledge th a t all
the charges or all these points w hich you refused to
recom m end M rs. Henry did you a t th a t point take
any action to re in sta te her?
Mr. Wells:
I object on that for th is reason.
[120] The decision of the Suprem e Court of M issis
sippi w as rendered the firs t opinion of the Supreme
Court which w as not a final opinion subject to the sug
gestion of e rro r a t the time when th e re w as no occa
149
sion for th is w itness to have tak en any action because
it was a fte r the time th a t the teachers had been re
com m ended for the 1963-64 session.
T hat f irs t opinion w as rendered a t the end of the
session of the Court in the la tte r p a r t of M ay or e a r
lier p a r t of June, a fte r the teach ers had been recom
mended for the 1963-64 session.
T here would be no occasion for th is w itness to have
made som e recom m endations on the m atte r a t th a t
time.
We subm it that is not a proper question as to
w hether he took any action when he learned of this, he
could do nothing about it.
The Court:
The objection is overruled. The w itness m ay an
swer.
The W itness:
I did not take any action.
D irec t Exam ination (C ontinuing):
By Mr. Bell:
Q. You know of course, th a t subsequent to its f irs t
opinion the S tate Suprem e Court rev ersed itse lf and
affirm ed the conviction of Dr. H enry?
[121] A. T hat is correct.
Q. Do you know the conviction of Dr. H enry is now
going to be subm itted for review to the U nited States
Supreme Court?
A. I did not.
Q. It is correct then to conclude th a t having m ade
your decision known about June 4, 1962 in reg a rd to
recom m ending Mrs. H enry for reh iring , you did not
150
follow the case as it proceeded th rough the Courts
bu t fe lt th a t th e ir decision w as final a t th a t tim e and
you felt it w as final and—
A. I felt it w as final and I haven’t had anything to
change my mind because the conviction still stands.
Q1. Excuse me ju s t a m inute, please.
But, Mr. Superin tendent w hen you m ade your de
cision, you didn’t know the decision was going to stand
or not?
Mr. Wells:
We object as repetitious and it is about the th ird
time he asked it.
The Court:
I th ink we have covered tha t. O bjection is sustained.
[122] Mr. Bell:
No fu rth e r questions.
The Court:
Any fu rth er questions.
Mr. M aynard:
We would like to have him on d irect ra th e r than
cross exam ination.
The Court:
You m ay do so.
Mr. M aynard:
W hat w as your answer?
The Court:
You m ay do so. Call your next w itness.
(W itness leaves the stand .)
151
Mr. Bell:
Mr. Wise, please.
[123] S. B. WISE, The witness having duty sworn
in th is case, testified as follows:
D irec t Examination.
By Mr. Bell:
Q. Will you s ta te your full name?'
A. S. B. Wise.
Q. Indicate your position w ith the Coahoma
County School B oard if any?
A. I am a t the p resen t time the P resid en t of the
Board.
Q. How long have you held th is position?
A. About four years.
Q. W ere you as a Board m em ber made aw are th a t
you would not under the s ta tu tes of M ississippi have
an opportunity to offer a con trac t to M rs. H enry for
the 1962-63 school y ear?
A. Well, I have known it since I have been a
m em ber of the Board in reg a rd to everybody reg a rd
less of the name.
Q. Now, do you know who the teach e r w as the
name of the teacher who was assigned to the position
form erly [124] held by Mrs. Henry?
A. Well, I have h eard it. I th ink h er name is
G eorgia R ichardson or G loria R ichardson, one of the
two. I don’t recall.
Q. G eorgia R ichardson, the counsel indicates th a t
it is G eorgia R ichardson, is th a t correct to your m em
ory on the subject?
A. Yes.
152
Q. Do you recall how m uch Mrs. Richardson—how
much experience M rs. R ichardson had w hen she w as
picked for the 1962-63 school year?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you recall during the pleadings portion of
this case signing a group of in te rroga to ries th a t w ere
served by the plaintiff on the defendant Board?
A. I do.
Q. May I have the answ ers filed to the plain tiff’s
in terrogatories m arked as E xhib it No. 4 for the plain
tiff?
The Court:
Certainly if they a re in the jack e t file.
[125] Mr. Bell:
Thank you.
The Court:
W ere you wishing to get them in the record for
this trial. You may introduce all the questions or answers.
I don’t know how you will a ttem pt to get them in with
this w itness.
Mr. Bell:
Well, the Board m em bers had signed them and as
m atte r of fact, we really didn’t need them in the re
cord except to th is one point.
The Court:
All right.
153
(Said document w as m arked as P la in tiff’s Exhibit
No. 4 for Identification.)
D irect Exam ination (Continuing):
By Mr. Bell:
Q. I show you th is E xhib it No. 4 for Identification
for the plain tiff titled answ er to the In te rrogato ries
and ask you, do you recognize a t the conclusion of th is
answ er your signature?
A. I do.
Q. All right, and I ask you to d irec t your attention
to the answ er num ber 33?
A. All right.
Q. I think w ith the defendan t’s perm ission if they
will allow th a t the question to in terrogatory num ber
[126] 13 read , “Name the college degree and teach
ing experience of the teach er replacing the plaintiff
in the Coahoma Public School.”
Mr. M aynard:
We agree to tha t, of course, it is in the answ ers.
D irec t E xam ination (C ontinuing):
By M r. Bell:
Q. Would you read the answ er?
A. (R ead in g )“ G eorgia R ichardson, A-e license, O
y ears experience!.”
Mr. Bell:
T hat is all.
The Court:
Any questions, M r. M aynard?
154
Mr. M aynard:
We would like to reserv e the rig h t also to call him.
The Court:
You m ay call him la te r.
Mr. Bell:
We have no further witnesses. Plaintiff rests.
Mr. M aynard:
We would like to recess and to save tim e.
The Court:
W hat is your estim ate of the tim e required?
[127] Mr. M aynard:
For recess, Your Honor, certainly not over fifteen
m inutes.
The Court: i [
Court is in recess until ten minutes after two.
(W hereupon a t one fifty o’clock P. M. C ourt re
cessed.)
[128] (W hereupon Court reconvened a t ten m inutes
after two o’clock P. M. after recess.)
The Court:
You m ay proceed.
Mr. M aynard:
We would like to make a motion first. These a re
two separate motions.
155
And now come S. B. Wise, Graham Bramlett, S. H.
Kyle and J. F. Humber, Jr., as defendant and
members of the Coahoma County, M ississippi, School
Board of Education, and m ove th a t all of the testim ony
in troduced on behalf of p la in tiff ag ain st said defend
ants be excluded and stricken from the record and
said cause be dism issed to the prejud ice of p lain tiff
as ag a in st said defendants, and for cause shows:
This cause s ta tes as a basis of its case ag ain st mem
bers of said B oard th a t they failed to re-employ the
plaintiff, Noelle H enry, for the scholastic y ear 1962-63
in the Coahom a County School D istric t. The evi
dence shows through the testim ony of the Superin
tenden t of Educaton, P au l H unter, th a t said Superin
tenden t of E ducation did not recommend to the Board
of E ducation th a t it re-employ the plaintiff, and under
the law of M ississippi in a county wide school district
such as the one involved here, it is necessary before
the B oard of Education can employ, or re-employ, a
teach e r th a t said employment, or re-employment, be
recom m ended by the Superin tendent of Education.
[129] As a second count for said m otion it is shown
th a t the en tire basis of this suit, as set out in the com
plain t of plaintiff, is th a t the civil righ ts of plaintiff
under the s ta tu tes of the United States of America
w ere violated, and th a t the p lain tiff w as not re-em-
ployed for the sole reason th a t she and her husband
been active in the activ ities of the N.A.A.C.P. There is
not a suggestion of evidence by any of the w itnesses
here th a t that w as the reason for h er not being re
employed and on the co n tra ry the Superintendent of
Education testified that th is did not en ter in any way
into his consideration not to m ake the recom m endation
of re-em ploym ent.
That is our m otion w ith reference to the Board.
156
[130] The Court:
All right.
Mr. M aynard:
We now come and move on behalf of defendant, Paul
H unter, Superin tendent of Education of Coahoma
County School D istric t of Coahoma County, Mis
sissippi, th a t all evidence against him be excluded
and th a t the cause of p lain tiff be dism issed as to him
with prejudice.
F o r cause for said motion said defendant shows
th a t under the s ta tu tes of the S tate of M ississippi, as
in te rp re ted by the Suprem e Court of M ississippi, the
m atte r of m aking recom m endations for em ploym ent
or re-em ploym ent of a teacher in a county wide school
district, as is the one here involved, is solely w ithin
the judgm ent and discretion of the Superintendent
of Education and not to be controlled in any way by
any Court;
And, second, the case against the Superin tendent
of Education fails as against the m em bers of the
B oard of E ducation because it asserts th a t he was
depriving the p lain tiff of her righ ts in th is case solely
because of her and h e r husband’s activities [131] in
N.A.A.C.P. and th is has not been proven.
And the th ird ground for the Superin tendent of
Education, if he needed to give reasons for not m aking
any recom m endation, said reasons, if given, w ere
completely sufficient to legally allow him not to rec
om m end the re-em ploym ent of the plaintiff, Noelle
Henry.
The Court:
I reserve ruling on the motion on P au l H unter.
157
Mr. M aynard:
We would like to call Mr. P au l Hunter.
[132] PAUL M. HUNTER, the w itness having been
duly sworn in this case, testified as follows:
D irec t Exam ination.
By Mr. M aynard:
Q. Mr. H unter, before we go into the questioning,
I hand you copies of the m inutes.
Mr. M aynard:
You have copies of tha t, A ttorney Bell?
Qi Mr. H unter, you have certified w hat appears
to be the M inutes of May 8, 1962 of the Coahoma
County B oard of Education?
A. T hat is correct.
Mr. M aynard:
Let me m ark th is for identification first.
The Court:
All right.
(Said docum ent was m arked D efendant’s Exhibit
No. 2 for Identification and in troduced into Evidence)
Q, Mr. H unter, I hand you a paper and ask you
w hat th a t paper is?
A. These a re the M inutes of the Coahoma County
Board of E ducation dated May 8, 1962 and so certi
fied by m e and they a re photostats.
[133] Q. They a re photostats?
A. Yes.
158
Q. And, referring to those M inutes and see if th e re
is any place th e re w here, any places w here you cull
the teachers for Coahoma County School D istrict for
the year 1962-63?
A. There is a complete recom m endation list.
Q. Does there appear anyw here on there the plain
tiff H enry’s nam e?
A. No.
Q. And, I believe you did not en ter h er name?
A. I did not.
Mr. M aynard:
Q. I w an t to in troduce it, Your Honor.
The Court:
Let it be received.
(Said document w as m ark ed D efendant’s E xhib it
No. 3 for Identification.)
Q. Mr. H unter, I have th is m ark ed for the purposes
of identification. I ask you to look a t w hat has been
m arked for the purposes of identification, D efendant’s
Exhibit No. 3 and tell us and the Court w hat th a t is.
Mr. Bell:
May we see it?
Mr. M aynard:
You haven ’t seen it? It is the M inutes.
[134] I’ll give counsel an opportunity to look it
over.
The Court:
All right.
159
By Mr, M aynard:
Q- I ask you w hat that is Mr. H unter?
A. This is a certified copy, a photostat copy of the
M inutes of the Coahoma County School B oard dated
M ay 14, 1962.
Q. Does it contain in th e re anyw here, Mr. H unter,
for the purpose of conserving time, a lis t of the rec
ommended teach e rs for the scholastic year 1963-64?
A. It does.
Q. H ave those contracts been entered into it?
A. The Contracts have not been signed, but th is
list had been subm itted and approved by the Board.
Q. Does th a t fill the quota for 1963-64 for Coahom a
County?
A. I t does.
Q. You w ere asked on the stand as an adverse
party defendant, who replaced the plaintiff, who w as
the replacem ent teacher for 1962-63.
Who w as the rep lacem en t teacher?
A. Mrs. G eorgia R ichardson, which appears in the
Minutes.
(1351 Q. Ju s t take Georgia R ichardson, was she
recom m ended well to you?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you consider her highly com petent to teach
in your county?
A. I did.
Q1. Did she serve out the full term ?
A. She served in that capacity satisfactorily .
Q. To your satisfaction?
A. Yes.
D irect Exam ination (Continuing):
160
Q!. And to the Board of Education in Coahoma
County, M ississippi’s satisfaction?
A. As fa r as I know.
Q. Did you recom m end her for the school y ear
1963-64 for Coahoma County D istrict?
A. I did.
Q. Did the B oard accept your recom m endation?
A. They did.
Q. And, do you accept contracts for Principals as
well as teachers?
A. T hat is right.
[136] Q. You said she changed h e r nam e?
A. She h as since m arried , h e r name is now—
Mr. Bell:
We object to that. This is particu larly irrelevant.
I im agine th e re m igh t be som e relevancy, she w as
reh ired for the coming year.
Mr. M aynard:
It would be re lev an t to be h ired, I think it would be
if I ask if it is reh ired .
The Court:
The w itness m ay answ er.
The W itness:
It is now Georgia M adden.
Ju st a minute, le t m e see how i t is spelled, G eorgia
R. for R ichardson M adden, (spelling) M-a-d-d-e-n.
Mr. M aynard:
We would like to introduce this, Your Honor.
161
(Said document w as m arked D efendant’s Exhibit
No. 3 for Evidence.)
Q. You have sa t in th is Courtroom and h eard the
various testim ony w ith reference to the teachers,
som e w ere recom m ended for dism issal and som e w ere
not dism issed as I recall, and do you recall the num
ber of o ther Negro teach e rs in Coahoma County who
was not reh ired or [137] re-employed for the school
y ear 1962-63?
A. T h a t is right.
Q. Do rem em b er any P rincipal of Coahoma Coun
ty School D istric t who w as not re-employed for the
year 1962-63?
A. Yes, there w as one.
Q. Would you s ta te to the Court the reason why that
Principal w as not re-em ployed in th a t particu la r
case?
A. The P rin cip al w as not re-em ployed because of
alleged im m oral activities by his wife which w as
brought to my a tten tion by the Supervisors of the
Colored Schools and other N egroes of the community.
Q. W as there any d irec t charge brought ag ain st
this m an if you know?
A. No, sir.
Q. F o r any m isconduct?
A. No, sir.
O. F o r teaching efficiency?
A. No, sir.
Q. And your sole reason w as his wife w as guilty of
im m oral conduct?
A. th a t is right.
The Court:
Let it be received.
162
[138] Q. Now Mr. Hunte'r, w ith preference to the
N.A.A.C.P. I ask you one question, You have h eard
the testim ony that the plain tiff H enry w as a m ember
of the N.A.A.C.P. is that correct?
A. T hat is correct.
Q. I ga ther th a t you have known th a t for some
time?
A. Yes.
Q. And you likewise adm itted you knew th a t Aaron,
Dr. H enry who is the husband of th is p a rticu la r p lain
tiff here w as active as a m em ber of the N.A.A.C.P.?
A. Right.
Q. In making up your decision for the employment
of the scholastic y ear 1962-63, for the nonem ploym ent
of the plaintiff, Noelle H enry, have e ither facts—the
fac t f irs t th a t she w as active or a t le a s t a m em ber of
the N.A.A.C.P. or her husband was p a rticu la rly active
in the activ ities of the N.A.A.C.P. had anything w hat
soever to do w ith your decision?
Mr. Bell:
We would like to object. He is asking for a con
clusion on th e issues th a t are before the Court and it
is the Court’s duty to decide. T hat would certain ly
be a self-serving declaration [139] on tha t.
The Court:
I reserve ruling. The w itness m ay answ er.
The W itness:
I did not.
163
By Mr. Bell:
Q. What w as your answ er?
A. It did not en ter into it.
Q. Excuse m e ju s t a m inute p lease.
Mr. H unter, If the plaintiff, Neolle H enry, w ere put
back as a teacher for th is p a rticu la r y ear would one
of your other teachers have to be dismissed?
Mr. Bell:
I object, I don’t th ink th a t is re levan t to the p roceed
ings here.
The Court:
O verruled.
The W itness:
Well, we have no vacancies for her. Someone would
have to be re leased to m ake room for her.
Mr. M aynard:
T hat is all. Excuse me, Your Honor. I m ean th a t is
all.
The Court:
Do you have any questions?
Mr. Bell:
We have a few questions.
[140] The Court:
All right.
D irect E xam ination (Continuing):
164
Cross Exam ination.
By M r. Bell:
Q. Now, you indicated Mr. Superintendent, that
your decision w as not a t all based on your knowledge
th a t Dr. H enry w as very active in the Civil R ights
P ro g ram of the N.A.A.C.P., is th a t correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. Did you realize or did you know th a t the libel
charge th a t you used as a part of the basis for your
action grew out of a s tatem ent and I believe a le tte r
th a t D r. Henry w rote in which he vehem ently denied
th a t he w as guilty of the m oral charge and m ove over
indicated ra th e r—in a ra th e r strong fashion th a t the
police officials had brought th is charge against him
because of his Civil R ights activ ities?
A. I didn’t see any such thing.
Q. But, you did know th a t th e re w as a libel charge
pending against him ?
A. That is correct.
Q. Did you investigate to see what basis th e re w as
for th a t charge?
A. It is not my position to dig into law suits. My
[141] position doesn’t entitle me to th a t tim e.
Q. Did you know as a m a ttte r of fact Mr. Super
intendent th a t other Negroes particu larly in the State
of M ississippi who have been involved in the Civil
Rights A ctivities from time to time have been a rrested
on one charge or other and have defended—testified
in p a r t the charge w as put on them because of Civil
Rights activities?
Mr. Wells:
Objection to th a t if the Court please.
165
Mr. Bell:
All right.
Cross E xam ination (C ontinuing):
By Mr. Bell:
Q. You said you didn’t have any knowledge of the
le tte r which was the basis of the libel suit against
Dr. Henry?
A. I ju s t knew th a t th e re was a libel charge th a t
had been com m itted. I didn’t know w hat the form
was, whether it was verbal or written, I didn’t know.
Q. A re—you a re aw are, I believe, you said earlier
you a re aw are th e re has been in the State of M issis
sippi particu larly in Coahoma County an increase
[142] in the la s t few y ears of Civil R ights activities,
is th a t right?
A. That is right.
Q. Are you aw are, Mr. H unter, there have been a
large num ber of people, m em bers of the N.A.A.IC.P.
and other Civil R ights groups who have been a rre s ted
in Coahoma County a re a during th is increase period
of activity?
Mr. Wells:
We object to th a t if the Court please.
The Court:
Objection sustained.
The Court:
Objection sustained.
Mr. Bell:
This bears exactly on the issues of this case.
166
Mr. Bell:
Your Honor, we should like to m ake—to take an
opportunity under 43-C under the ru les of procedure.
The Court:
Is th a t an offer?
M r. Bell:
I would like to get th is m a te ria l into the record.
The Court:
You m ay do so if you have th a t righ t under the rule,
but of course, anything under th a t ru le will not be
under consideration in arriv ing a t this decision.
[143] Mr. Bell:
Would the Court a t th is tim e listen to fu rth er argu
m ent as to perm issible testim ony from the witness?
The Court:
I have sustained it. As fa r as I am concerned it
has no bearing on the case. You m ay m ake your
record under the rule as you see fit.
Mr. Bell:
All right. We will m ake use of th a t opportunity then,
Y our Honor.
The Court:
All right.
The Court:
Objection is sustained.
167
By Mr. Bell:
Q. M r. H unter, we are going to ask you certain
questions which w ere objected to and the objection
was susta ined by the Court, but under the federa l
rules of procedure, you are requ ired to answ er these
questions for the purpose of the record.
U nder ru le 42,-C, we ask you w hether or not you
w ere aw are in the S tate of M ississippi and p articu la rly
in the Coahom a County a rea , th e re have been a g rea t
num ber of a rre s t of persons in the N.A.A.C.P. and too,
other Civil R ights Groups?
A. I know severa l people have been a rre sted but
w hether they belonged to the N.A.A.C.P. or not, I
have no w ay of knowing.
[144] Q. H ave |yo;u been aw are of the a rre s t or
th a t they w ere a rrested while pro testing in one form
or fashion the practice of racial segregation?
A. They didn’t w hen I saw them . I didn’t see but
one or two people w alking. I don’t know w hat they
w ere protesting.
Q. Have you received inform ation in the sam e
fashion th a t you received inform ation of the libel
charge against Dr. Henry, th a t m any persons have
been a rrested while pro testing racial dem onstrations?
Mr. Wells:
If the Court please, for m aking our proceedings
c lear for the record to th is evidence, it is not even
substantially enough to be com petent under the rule
45-C which gives the Court som e d iscretion in the
m atter unless it can be shown there is some connection
betw een those a rre s ts and the actions by the defend
Cross Exam ination (C ontinuing):
168
an ts in th is case w ith reference to the em ploym ent
or nonemployment of teachers.
Mr. Bell:
Let me say th is in answ er.
[145] Mr. Wells:
It is going fa r afield of any evidence th a t could
possibly be re la ted to any violation of th is p la in tiff’s
righ ts under the F ourteen th A m endm ent on which
this suit is predicated and involved in h er righ t to
requ ire the school B eard of this county to give her a
contract to teach.
Mr. Bell:
Let m e say—
The Court:
The plaintiff has a right unless the Court is able to
say the evidence given to any possible theory of the
case is not re la ted , and I am not in a position to say
this is his position here.
You may proceed.
Cross Exam ination (Continuing):
By Mr. Bell:
Q:. Do you rem em ber the question?'
A. I saw one dem onstration in C larksdale. They
w ent on the s tree ts . They had p lacards around th e ir
necks. All I saw on the placards w as a Bible reading
which I d idn’t read. That is the only kind of p ro test
that I have seen.
169
[146] Q. W hat happened to th is group of people,
were they a rrested?
A. I don’t know,
Q. And then, I ask you again on w hat inform ation
you received, the inform ation about the libel charge,
th a t is from, the new spapers or otherw ise, have you
come to know th a t th e re have been a large num ber
of a rre s ts in the S tate of M ississippi and Coahoma
County of persons in the N.A.A.C.P. or other Civil
R ights groups who engaged in one form of p ro tes t or
another?
A. W hat do you consider a la rge num ber of a r
rests?
Q. I—
A. I have to gauge it w ith something.
Q. I would say up to two or th ree hundred in Coa
homa County in the last two or th ree years?
A. I haven ’t any recollection of how m any in the
la s t two years.
Q. I mean a la rg e num ber over th a t period of time
of approxim ately one to two hundred people?
A. I don’t know.
[147] Q. I am not asking you w hether you know,
w hether you obtained inform ation through the new s
papers or o ther just as you obtained inform ation in
the case of Noelle H enry’s husband about the a rre s t
of people pro testing rac ia l segregation?
A. There w as. bu t your ideas of num bers don’t be
gin to coincide so I don’t know w hat you m ean by
la rge num bers.
0 ;. I don’t w ant to quibble over the num ber. You
are aw are of the a rre s ts of nelsons engaged in
N.A.A.C.P. activities or Civil R ights Activities?
170
Mr. Wells:
May I ask if the period of tim e he is refe rring to
a re incidents th a t have happened since M ay of 1962?
Mr. Bell:
They could have happened before tha t. I said the
last few y ears or the la s t two years.
Mr. W ells:
Well, I would like to ask counsel to confine his ques
tions so we will know w hat the record m eans.
Mr. Bell:
I would like to ask the questions to get the respon
sive answ ers and if you can suggest [149] the way
th a t is going to concur, I will be glad to do it.
Now the w itness testified—I believe Mr. H unter,
th a t you acted on the application of Mrs. H enry w hen
you read in the pap er about her husband having been
convicted in Ju stice of the Peace Court of which you
don’t know w hich—convicted of a m oral charge and
you la te r h eard from various people about another
legal action going to be taken against e ither he or
his wife and now you acted on the inform ation based
on the new spapers and I ask you w hether or not you
obtained inform ation over the la s t two years about
the a rre s t of persons who w ere protesting rac ia l seg
regation in Coahom a County in the sam e way?
A. I told you I did, but you said la rge num bers
and I didn’t agree.
Q. Well, le t’s tak e those that you are fam ilar w ith
in the Coahom a County a re a as to those, do you re
call w hat the charges w ere th a t w ere p laced against
them?
171
A. I believe parading w ithout a perm it.
[150] Q. Now, do you recall the activity in which
these persons w ere engaged at the time they w ere
a rrested ?
A. I saw one.
Q. I would like you to refer to the sam e type of
inform ation, new spaper or otherwise on which you
based your actions against Mrs. Henry, how did the
new spapers re fe r to this?
A. That is what the new spapers charged, they w ere
parading.
Q. Did it indicate they w ere carrying signs?
A. I don’t know.
I saw one w ith Bible scrip tu res on them.
Q. Now, do you know w hether in the la st few years
back in Jackson, M ississippi a re a th e re w ere a la rg e
group of people came in and who were categorized
as the “F reedom R ider”— a large num ber of them
w ere a rrested as a resu lt of that activity?
Mr. Wells:
If the Court please, I believe th is is going fa r afield.
Mr. Bell:
Tt’s all the same thine'. It is perfectly fa ir th a t as
a m a tte r of fac t persons who a re intim idated because
of th e ir Civil R ights beliefs in this state or other states
are not a rre s ted and charged w ith having indicated
integration. They a re [151] arrested for b reach of peace.
They are arrested for parading without a license as
they a re a rre s ted on m oral charges.
That is the re levance of th is line of inau iry and the
relevancv to the action taken by the Superintendent
th a t having a rrested in the same fashion on some
172
of the sam e charges th a t hundreds of other N egroes
have been arrested for pro testing segregation.
This m an took no fu rth e r—w ent no fu rth e r but
im m ediately acted and refused to reh ire D r. H enry’s
wife, the p lain tiff in th is case and this is why we feel
it is re levan t.
The Court:
These other people who you re fe r w ere not ap
plicants for teaching positions in Coahoma County
School System , w ere they?
Mr. Bell:
No, Your Honor.
The Court:
I think you a re going fa r afield. The objection is
sustained.
Mr. Bell:
Ju s t one second.
Thank you. We have no fu rther questions.
[152] The Court:
Any fu rther questions of this w itness?
Mr. Wells:
Ju s t a minute, Your Honor.
Did we introduce into evidence the Exhibits or
only for identification?
Mr. M aynard:
No, I introduced them.
The D efendants rest. Your Honor.
173
The Court:
A nything m ore from the plaintiff?
Mr. Bell:
No, sir.
The Court:
What would be your disposition do you w ish to
p resen t oral argum ents, briefs or w hat?
Mr. Bell:
Which ever the Court prefers.
Mr. M aynard:
W hatever the Court w ishes.
The Court:
Which would you p re fe r for the plaintiff. I th ink
your wishes would be paramount?
Mr. Bell:
Your Honor, I think the plaintiff would be of g rea te r
assistance by the Court by providing w ritten briefs.
[153] The Court:
W hat is your estim ate of time for you to brief the
m atter according to your satisfaction?
Mr. Bell:
I probably won’t need m ore than a w eek or ten
days.
The Court:
Would ten days be all right?
Mr. M aynard:
Yes, sir.
174
The Court:
Ten days for the plain tiff and ten days for the de
fendant a fte r service of the p la in tiffs briefs.
If you need rebuttal, ask for it, otherw ise I take it
on one brief from each side.
Anything fu rther?
Court is adjourned.
(W hereupon Court w as adjourned at th ree th irty
P. M.)
n MNOT*: See. U, H. B. No. H. *xir*W hi«ry Session si IMS provides that it this eon ta
ton day* sftsr batnf tends red. Own. at Oi. opUon of th* Board a* iron*** of «** dutrlcs, the esmtraeS K
no affect.
not executed and returned Within
and of
Contract Of Employment
WHEREAS, the undersigned ..... l 0 * 11® M* H «U ty ...................... ~ .h s s been duly selected and
la the manner provided in House Bill No. 11. Extraordinary Session of 1953, for tha position si
Ta a c h a r _ _____...................... of the .............^ J^ C lo a d .... ____........................School District t o th®
Supt., Principal or Teacher
scholastic years of and
WHEREAS, the undersigned — is
Session of 1953, to enter into a contract w ith said _
terms, conditions and provisions of said em ploym en t; now
req u ired by sa id H ouse B ill No. 11, J fc s tn w d iM ry
Mo®Ue M. Swarf ___..irvidiBsei« the
THEREFORE, for the mutual considerations hereinafter expressed, it is hereby agreed aad stipulated a*
follows;
Ysashgg*
1. That the said... « 9 6 .n f .,)* ..H « rtty .............. ...... is hereby employed as ................ ........ ......- ....— --------- ot
y,e .............. ....................M cC lcod................ School of the ..........9®***®* C otm % I®p?@....... School District for
the scholastic years of . ^ ^ . ? , the length of the school term being ^ months.
2. That the said . JL o e lL t Me B « U 7 hereby accepts such employment and obligates himself
to perform such duties as are required by law or by the board of trustees of the W«£FO School District,
and to perform his duties as.............. ?a*Qh*C in a satisfactory manner and in accordance with the policies,
rules, and regulations of the State Board of Education, the CoshOBS County Board of Education and
the board of trustees of said school district.
3. That the annual salary to be paid to said H ofllld M» D U U 7........................................ for said services
for each scholastic year shall be, either
A. The sum of the following three amounts: (a) An amount from the minimum program salary fund equal
to the state salary schedule or whatever percentage of said schedule minimum program funds will provide
In accordance with Senate Bill 1205, Section 5(c), Extraordinary Session of 1953; (b) the sum of $--------------- -
from the maintenance fund of the...........................—- ....... .......—---------- --------------------------- School District;
(c) the sum of $ ................... — --- -------from ............ .................. — -----------------------------------hmd(a);
or
B. A fixed amount of $ & 5P*oq___ _____ composed of whatever amount said employe* is entitled to Stum
minimum program salary fund plus the difference between said amount and the fixed annual salary,
payable out of* 1**? .JU L .®***1_ fundls).
Said salary shall be paid ln_ ....... 9 _______ _____ Installments of f ..™ !.? ? .-------------------------each, with
the first such payment to be made on the last day of the month in which the school opens or the last day ot
the scholastic month, whichever is applicable, and the remaining payments to he made on the last day of each
9
month (or last day of scholastic month, whichever is applicable) thereafter until---------- Z— -------------such pay
ments have been made.
4. In all respects, this contract shall be subject to all of the applicable provisions of House Bill No. 11,
Extraordinary Session of 1953, and any other applicable statute, and all such provisions are hereby incorporated
as a part of this contract by express reference thereto.
Witness our signatures this thec
N ote T h t t fo rm m ay b e u sed b y s e p a ra te
schoo l d is tr ic t s u p e r in te n d e n ts by d ra w in g
s lin e th ro u g h "C o u n ty of
E d u c a tio n ' u n d e r th e ir s ig n a tu re s
3 0 th
County Superintendent of Education
___ ??7. _________
Superintendent, Prind^U or Teacher
208
17 5
AFCTAVnr TO M3/W30SHf? O? J ANIMATION
COUNTY Of ^ jfr ^ L A A T T T lA 1 ____
L N o e l i e N. Henry
bating on opplleonf for *h* position of_ T e a c h e r
ot_ McCloud J u n i o r Hj^h S choo l
* ______________F a r r e l l , M is s ,__________________________ ,_____ b,ing firi, du|y ,WOf„, do
h*r»by depo t* and to y that I am now or hav# bs*n w ithin fb« post S yoors 0 m sm bsf ©f ?h« foStewing organ
izations and rt« ethsrsi
V OSOAWCEATfONS
Nam® Addr*s»
Haven M e t h o d i s t Church & I t s A u x l l 1e r i g s C l a r k s d a l e , M is s ,
T h i r d C o r y . r e s e l o n a l D i e t . T . A»___ ________________________________ ______
American T e a c h e r s A s s o c i a t i o n _______ Montgomery, Alabama
(Hs-a*® nt$ as&>©»®$ m
Coupiy T e a c h e r s A s s o c i a t i o n _______ ______
^ i B B l s s i p F i S t a t e T e a c h e r s A s s o c i a t i o n
C l a r k s d a l e , M is s .
J a c k s o n , Hie s
N a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n of t h e U .S .
A mer ican Left lon A u x i l i a r y __________ _________ _____________
N o r th M i s s i s s i p p i M e d i c a l , D e n t a l , .................................. ......................... .......... ....
P h a r m a c e u t i c a l and N urse s A u x i l i a r y
and further, that I am now paying, or within the past fhra (5) yoars have paid, regular du«8 <®r «w»d« re
gular contributions t© th« foilowing organisations and no ©tbocss
Nam*
Red C r o s s
Q®OAMXA?K>NS
Address
. H e a r t Pud .
March o f Dimes
Boy S c o u t s o f America
A mer ican C a n c e r S o c i e t y
2 l ^ J A
^— ) (Signature m Affiia
Sworn f& and subscribed feofore mst, this lb®—../ £ )■ -— doy of
Mt? Commission £*pi,es Jk"*« 4, i9«2
(Signature ©f Official?
(Till* of Official)
( O v e r ,
Elks Club
Friendship Federal Credit Union ' :
\ ■'Coahoma County Educational Federal Credit Union
Jackson College Alumni Club •
177
D EFT. EXH. # 2
M ay 8, 1962.
At the regu lar m eeting of the Coahoma County
Board of E ducation held a t 10:00 A.M. on May 8, 1962,
Chairm an Wise w as the only m em ber p resen t. T here
being no quorum present, Chairman Wise d irected
th a t the m eeting be ad journed over until 7:45 P.M.
M ay 8, 1962.
May 8, 1962.
At the adjourned over m eeting of the regu lar m eet
ing of the Coahom a County Beard of Education the
following m em bers w ere present: S. B. Wise, S. H.
Kyle and 'Graham. Bram lett.
The read ing of the m inutes of the previous m eet
ing w as dispensed with.
Attorney Wm. H. Maynard stated to the Board that
the Board of T rustees of the C larksdale M unicipal
Separate School D istrict would agree to include its
portion of the Sixteenth Section P rin cip al Funds of
Section 16, Township 27, Range 4, Coahom a County,
M ississippi, in aiding in the construction of the
Clarksdale-Coahom a High School building provided
an am endm ent allowing the sam e w as m ade to th a t
certa in contract m ade and en tered into by and be
tw een C larksdale M unicipal S epara te School D istrict
and Coahoma County School D istrict on the 13th day
of September, 1960, with reference to the joint opera
tion of the senior and junior high schools in the coun
178
ty, and the said am endm ent approved by the S tate
Educational F inance Commission.
A fter full discussion a m otion w as m ade by G raham
Bramlett, seconded by S. H. Kyle, and unanimously
carried th a t the following resolution be adopted:
Resolution.
W hereas, the B oard of T rustees of C larksdale
M unicipal S epara te School D istric t of Coahoma Coun
ty, M ississippi, has indicated th a t it is w illing for
its portion of S ix teenth Section Principal Funds of
Coahoma County, M ississippi, which include Six
teen th Section P rincipal Funds of Section 16, Town
ship 2,7, Range 4, to be used in aiding in the construc
tion of Clarksdale-Coahoma High School building in
Coahoma County, M ississippi; and
W hereas, in o rder th a t said funds be so used it is
n ecessa ry to am end th a t certain contract en te red
into between Clarksdale Municipal Separate School
D istrict, Coahoma County, M ississippi, by its B eard
of Trustees, and Coahom a County School D istric t
of Coahoma County, M ississippi' by i t s Board of
Education, on the 13th day of Septem ber, 1960, which
con tract dealt, among other things, w ith the con
struction and operation of a high school building;
Now, Therefore, be it Resolved, That, sub ject to
the approval of C larksdale M unicipal S eparate School
D istrict of Coahoma County, M ississippi, Section A-l)
of th a t certain contract m ade and en tered into by
and betw een C larksdale Municipal S epara te School
D istrict, Coahoma County, Mississippi, by its Board
179
of T rustees, and Coahoma County School D istrict
of Coahoma County, M ississippi, by its B oard of E du
cation, on the 13th day of Septem ber, 1960, be, and
the sam e is hereby, am ended to read as follows:
“ (1) P a rty of the second p a r t shall use its every
influence to have a successful bond issue election
which will be called in th is d is tric t to subm it to the
voters of th a t d istrict the proposition as to w hether
bonds of said d is tric t shall be issued in the p rin
cipal sum of $1,200,000 for the purpose of providing-
money needed to construct a m odern Senior High
School large enough to provide adequately for the edu
cational needs of w hite students in school g rades ten
through tw elve who reside in the school d is tric ts of
the p a rtie s hereto . In the event said bond issue c a r
ries w ith the requ isite vote requ ired by law, pa rty
of the second p a rt shall use the proceeds from the said
bond issue a fte r deducting said bond expenses, for
the purpose of erecting the school building refe rred
to above, and a t the option of the p a rty of the firs t
p a rt m ay be aided in the paym ent of said school
building by the p a rty of the firs t part by use of its
portion of m oney of the S ixteenth Section P rincipal
Funds of Section 16, Township 27, Range 4 West,
Coahom a County, M ississippi.”
Be it fu rth er Resolved, That in the event the State
E ducational F inance Commission approves the
amendment set forth in the foregoing p a rag rap h of
this resolution and the Board of T rustees of Clarks-
dale M unicipal S epara te School D istric t agrees to the
expenditure provided thereunder th a t the B oard of
Education of Coahoma County, M ississippi, expend
180
all th a t portion of the P rincipal Funds of Section 16,
Township 27, Range 4 West, Coahoma County, Mis
sissippi, a ttribu tab le to or belonging to C larksdale
Municipal S epara te School D istric t in aiding in the
construction of the Clarksdale-Coahom a High School
building.
On m otion by G raham Bram lett, seconded by S. H.
Kyle and unanim ously approved, the low bid of S tand
a rd Oil Co. for gasoline for the m onth of M ay w as
accepted. This bid was in the amount of 11.40c per
gallon w ith 1% discount-30 days.
Claims 1330 through 1489, inclusive, w ere approved
by the B oard for paym ent.
On motion by S. H. Kyle, seconded by G raham
B ram lett and unanim ously adopted, the B oard agreed
to move the house known as the “Coach’s Home”
located a t the Sunflower School to the site of the
new Africa-Roundaway Colored School to be used
as a c a re tak e r’s home or faculty m em ber’s home
in order th a t they m ight keep w atch over the prop
erty . The bid of H ayes M overs in the amount
of $450.00 w as accepted.
On motion by S. H. Kyle, seconded by Graham
Bram lett and unanim ously approved, the following
list of equipm ent for the Africa-Roundaway School
as recom m ended by the Superintendent w as approved
for purchase:
No. Description
26 Prim ary tables
248 Primary Chairs
165 15" Tablet arm chairs
75 17" Tablet arm chairs
16 General Purpose chairs
4 Home Ec. tables
32 Home Ec. chairs
4 Sewing machines
400 Folding chairs
10 Folding tables
100 Oak stools
1 Refrigerator
1 Cafe Range
Silverware
12 doz. Plastic tumblers
1 Electric mixer
1 Swivel chair
1 Floor polisher
1 Milk cooler
3 Garbage Cans
Successful Bidder Amount
Miss- School Supply Co. $ 663.00
Miss. School Supply Co. 1,091.20
Miss. School Supply Co. 1,287.00
Miss. School Supply Co. 633.75
Miss. School Supply Co. 99.20
Central School Supply Co. 177.80
Central School Supply Co- 179.84
Singer Sewing Machine Co. 353.00
Central School Supply Co. 1,308.00
Central School Supply Co. 259.70
Miss. School Supply Co. 365.00
Sulkin-Tate, Inc. 494.40
House-Bond Co. 53.05
House-Bond Co. 15-60
Sulkin-Tate Co. 265.00
Miss. School Supply 21.60
Miss. School Supply 245.00
Sulkin-Tate Co. 264.00
House-Bond Co. 18.45
N egro T eachers E lected for 1962-1963 School Session.
May 8, 1962.
A frica-Roundaw ay:
J. P . Myles, Phyllis D. E rvin , Edw ard A. Queen,
Jew ett Conner, H enry Allen, M artha Holmes, M arie
S tew art, M arganna P ark er, Annie L. Myles, G erald
ine E. Brown, B eatrice S treet, O. L. Spragin, Bessie
Louise Davis, G ertrude Ingram , Johnnie B. Strong.
Dublin:
R. S. Willis, Lena R. Mixon, Annis A. Poindexter,
Vernice E. R encher, M andie C. Jefferson, E ssie Belle
W illiams, Cozetta M. W hite, Jean C. D upree, Willie
Mae Fields, Carolyn J. W illiam s, Joseph N. R ichard
son, E v a N. Gibbs, Ora L. Sexton, Samuel E . Wil
liams, Timothy L. Gates, Willie L. N orphlet, J . D.
M ontgomery, M ary H. Shannon, M ary B. W edding-
ton Johnson, Kathryn; G. MlcDougal, Tommie Wil
iam s.
E astover:
Delia V. Brinson.
F r ia rs Point:
L. C. Scott, Melville C. Tillis, Helen C. Scott, Lu-
c re tia C. Jones, M ary P. Ying, L illian O. H um phries,
Rubye D. Humphries, Eugene Howard, Rudolphia R.
Hall, B ertha B. Riley, Rubye B. H ughes, Irene Gil
bert, M ary H. Hoosman, Delores D. Tunson, Iola
Dawson, Alice R andle.
183
Hops on:
M argare t K. Chapm an, G race Terrell, Belzoni
Coates, Louella K. S ingletary.
Hull:
W. J. Jones, Inell May, Vivian M. Jones, Jam es
Shelby,, E m m a Jea n Robinson, Vemotfca L. Wed-
dington, F ran k Bluntson, Allie D. Anderson, A lberta
Stone, Willie L. Greenwood, M arie E . H arris, Chris
tine P. Jenkins.
Jonestown:
J. W. Poindexter, V. L. Rencher, W infield Cun
ningham, L. P . Jones, H arry Humphries, M yrtle B.
Shanks, E dna P. Luckett, Johnny W ashington, Jean
M. D erry, Irene T. A rm strong, Addye B. Poindexter,
Beatrice D. Scott, Vera I. Jefferson , M ary H. Brown,
M ary Helen Delk, Delia W illiams, L au ra B. F ields,
M attie B. T rotter, Pinkie Davis, Ruby Glass, Lela B'.
Cooper.
L u la :
Lula E. Pendleton, L a rry D. Jackson, E lizabeth
Bowie Wilson. Velma F eatherstone Gates, M aenetta
A. Williams, Alene Cosey, G lorist Jackson, Lula D.
Weeks. R achel V. Shelby, Rubye B. Cosby, R osa
A rm strong, Rosie Mae Shelby, Annie J. Billups, Addie
Mae Beasley. B ernice J. W right.
Lyon:
J. D. Williams, Thelma P. Piggie, S arah Lee Sims,
M argie Mason. Sara B. Cannon. M ary Agnes Lee.
Emma T.pur a Mason. Rosetta S. Blade, Sidnev W al
lace. Blanche L. Stacks. L ea ra L. Thompson. Jam es
184
Shanks, R uth K. Hall, Lee E tta Jones, Charles H.
Jones, Lula Mae Payne, Selm a G. Williams, Yvonne
Rich.
McCloud:
Charles H, Ball, E lla M. Compton, Thelma Melchor,
M ary E . M arshall, D avid C. H arris , Em m a J. Long,
W illiam H. Gatewood, Annye E . D augherty .
S herard :
F . W. Palm er, M abeline T. Flow ers, R osetta H.
B rantley , Blanche Palm er, A udrey Ball, Mamie S.
Gipson, M atilda D .Jam es, B enjam in F. Jones, Eve
lyn S. Gooden, F oster James, Jea n A. Palm er, E dna
B. Jo rdan , A lbertine C. Neely, F lorence W. Hicks.
Sycamore:
Ida Mae Jackson Turner.
Sandy Bayou:
Dorothy Moore A rm strong, Isiah Brown, McKinley
M artin, Law rence Furdge.
The Board approved a list of negro teachers for
the colored county schools, this list being on file in
the office of the Superintendent.
On motion by G raham R ram lett, seconded by S. H.
Kyle and unanim ously adopted, the Superin tendent
w as instructed to request from the Educational F i
nance Commission a bid date for equipm ent for the
addition a t the F r ia rs Point Colored School.
On motion by S. H. Kyle, seconded by G raham
B ram lett and unanim ously adopted, the following
185
construction change orders for the Clarksdale-Coa-
hom a High School w ere approved:
One (1) Aluminum Sliding Window with steel
wire guards—-material and labor .............. $ 97.75
Two (2) Standard Single Modern folding doors,
complete-—labor and material ...................... 177.00
One (1) Kinear Steel Rolling Door—labor and
material ............................................................. 332.00
For furnishing six (6) Wasco Vent Domes with
fans ...............................................- ................... 1,536-00
For furnishing conduit in the P. E. classroom,
#189, for telephone location ...................... 45.00
For furnishing and installing grill in the duct
of Room 72 ....................................................... 55.00
$ 2,242.75
Plus 10% overhead and profit ......................... 224.27
2,467.02
Nine (9)
Four (4) outlets for Drivers’ Trainer unit for a
total of .............................................................. $ 208.00
Installing one (1) 5 HP outlet in woodshop . . 57.00
$ 265.00
The m eeting w as adjourned over until May 15,
1962, a t 7:45 P.M . to complete the agenda.
S. B. WISE,
PAUL M. HUNTER.
State of M ississippi,
County of Coahoma.
I, P au l M. H unter, County Superin tendent of E du
cation and Secretary of the Board of E ducation of
186
Coahoma County, M ississippi, do hereby certify tha t
the above and foregoing contains a whole, tru e and
correct copy of M inutes of May 8, 1963, as the same
appears on file and of record in Book III, P ages
203-205, of the records in my office, a t C larksdale,
Miss.
W itness my H and and Seal, th is the . . day of . . ,
1963.
(Seal) PAUL M. HUNTER.
DEFT. EXH. # 3 .
M ay 14, 1963.
The regu lar m eeting of the Coahoma County Board
of Education w as held on the above date w ith the
following m em bers present: S. B-. Wise, S. H. Kyle,
J . F. Humber, J r . , Graham. B ram lett and C. M.
Allen.
Claims 3065 through 3196, inclusive, w ere approved
for paym ent.
M inutes of the previous m eeting w ere read and
approved.
Mr. T. H. P earso n and Mr. M axwell, representing
Hamm G rain Co. of W ichita, K ansas, appeared before
the Board asking th a t th ree (3) acres of the Lula-
Rich School site be sold to them for the erection of
a g ra in elevator. The following motion w as offered
bjr Mr. S. H. Kyle, seconded by Mr. G raham Bram-
187
lett: the th ree (3) acres suggested be advertised
for sale w ith bids to be recieved by 10:00 A.M. June
11; th a t a 60-day lease be given to the Hamm Grain
Co. of the th ree (3) acres of ground or until the sale
is finalized; th a t no price less than $2,000.00 per acre
be accepted. The above motion was unanimously passed.
Bids for gasoline for the month of May w ere opened
and on a motion by S. H. Kyle, seconded by C. M.
Allen and unanim ously approved, the con tract was
aw arded to the lowest bidder, that being the Am eri
can Oil Co., the price being 11c per gallon w ith 1%
discount-30 days.
Bids w ere opened for a new electrical sw itch panel
for the Jonestow n E lem en ta ry White School and on
a m otion by J. F. Humber, J r ., seconded by C. M.
Allen and unanim ously approved, the contract w as
aw arded to the low bidder, th a t being F & M E lec
tric Co. of Clarksdale in the amount of $205.65.
Bids w ere opened for the w iring of the cafe te ria
addition a t the F r ia rs Point White E lem entary School,
and on a motion by C. M. Allen, seconded by G raham
B ram lett and unanim ously adopted, Coker H eating,
Plum bing and E lectric t Co. w as aw arded the contract
as being the best bid and the am ount being $162,.75.
On a motion by S. H. Kyle, seconded by C. M. Allen
and unanim ously adopted, the school calendar for
the colored schools for the year 1963-64, as recom
m ended by the Superintendent, w as approved.
188
On a motion by G raham Bram lett, seconded by
J . F . Humber, J r . and unanim ously adopted, the
school calendar for the w hite schools for the y ear
1963-64, as recommended by the Superintendent,
w as approved.
The B oard instructed the Superintendent to contact
the E ducation Finance Commission to ask for a bid
date of June 17 for the purpose of receiving bids for
the lighting p ro jects at the Jonestow n and Dublin
A ttendance C enters. The sam e date is to be used to
receive bids for the F r ia rs Point A ttendance Center
which is not an Educational Finance Commission
project.
The Superin tendent reported th a t there w as a ques
tion as to the safety of the steam boiler a t the Dublin
E lem entary W hite School and a fte r considerable dis
cussion S. H. Kyle offered the following motion which
was seconded by C. M. Allen: the Superintendent
employ a consulting engineer who is qualified to
m ake a complete inspection and study of the ex ist
ing boiler and m ake a repo rt of same to the Board.
The m otion w as unanim ously carried .
On a motion by S. H. Kyle, seconded by J . F . Hum
ber, J r . and unanimously adopted, the B oard ap
proved Jeanes Supervisor W hite’s taking p a rt in a
w orkshop Ju ly 8 to August 10.
A list of colored teachers for the 1963-64 school
term w as subm itted and recom m ended by the Super
intendent. On a motion by S. H. Kyle, seconded by
189
G raham B ram le tt and unanim ously passed, the fol
lowing list was approved:
A frica-Roundaw ay School:
1. Annie L. Myles. 2. M arganna P a rk e r. 3. Dixie
G. Flowers. 4. M arie F. S tew ard. 5. M artiida D.
Jam es. 6. Bessie L. Davis. 7. G ertrude Ingram . 8.
Johnnie B. Strong. 9. M artha W. Holmes. 10. O. L.
Spragin. 11. H enry Allen. 12. E dw ard A. Queen. 13.
Phyllis D. E rvin . 14. B eatrice S treet. 15. Jew ett Con
ner. 16. H enrie tta Spragin. 17. F o ste r Jam es. 18. G er
aldine Brown.
Dublin School:
1. Lena B. Mison. 2. Willie M. Fields. 3. Vernice
S. Rencher. 4. Mandie C. Jefferson. 5. Cozetta M.
White. 6. Essie B. W illiams. 7. Jean C. Dupree. 8.
Carolyn J. W illiams. 9. Annis A. Poindexter. 10. Ora
L. Sexton. 11. Joseph N. Richardson. 12. Mary H.
Shannon. 13. Timothy L. G ates. 14. Willie L, Norphlet.
15. J . D. Montgomery. 16. K athryn G. McDougal.
17. M ary W. Johnson. 18. E va N. Gibbs. 19. Tom m ie
W illiams. 20..........................................
F r ia rs Point:
1. Melville C. Tillis. 2. L ucretia Jones. 3. Annie
E . D augherty . 4. Lillian O. H um phries. 5. M ary H.
Hoosman. 6. Eugene H ov^rd . 7. Ruby D. Humphries.
8. Iola L. Dawson. 9. TJz'elma M. M elchor. 10. Rud-
olphia R. Hall. 11. M>fy M. M arshall. 12. Em ma J.
Long. 13. M ary P. Ying. 14. Alice R andle. 15. Ruby
B. Hughes. 16. Willie B. Martin. 17. Ella Mary Compton.
18. B ertha Riley. 19. Helen iC. Scott.
190
Hopson:
1. G race Terrell. 2. Louella S ingletary 3. Belzoni
Coates.
Hull School:
1. Christine Jenkins. 2. Marie F. Harris. 3. Willie
L. Greenwood. 4. James Austin Shelby. 5. Allie D.
Anderson. 6. F ran k Bluntson, J r . 7. V ernetta L. Wed-
dington. 8. Inell May. 9. V ivian M. Jones. 10. A lberta
Stone.
Jonestow n School:
1. W infield Cunningham . 2. E dna P. Luckett.
3. M yrtle B. Shanks. 4. V arner L. R encher. 5. Leroy
P. Jones. 6. H arry C. H um phries. 7. Johnny W ashing
ton. 8. Jean D. F razier. 9. Irene T. A rm strong. 10.
Thom as J. Reed. 11. Addye B. Poindexter. 12. B eat
rice D. Scott. 13. V era I. Jefferson. 14. M ary H.
Brown. 15. M ary H. Delk, 16. D elia H. W illiams. 17.
L au ra F . Williams. 18. Sadie H arris . 19. M attie P.
T rotter. 20. Ruby H. G lass. 21. P inkie Davis. 22.
Lela B. Cooper.
Lula School:
1. Larry D. Jackson. 2. Elizabeth B. Wilson. 3.
Velm a F. G ates. 4. Glorist E . Jackson. 5. Alen Cosey.
6. Lula D. W eeks. 7. R achel V. Shelby. 8. Rubye B.
Cosby. 9. R osa A rm strong. 10. Rosie M. Shelby. 11.
Annie J. Billups. 12. Maenetta. A. Williams. 13. Edith
W alls. 14........................................
Lvon School:
1. Thelm a P. P igsie . 2. Sarah Lee Sims. 3. M argie
Mason. 4. S ara B. Cannon. 5. E m m a L au ra Mason.
6. M ary Agnes Lee. 7. R osetta S. B lade. 8. Sidney
191
W allace. 9. B lanche L. Stacks. 10. Leara L. Thomp
son. 11. Jam es A. Shanks. 12. Ruth K. Hall. 13. Lee
E tta Jones. 14. C harles H. Jones, 15. Jam es Piggie.
16. Lula M. P ayne. 17. Selma G. W illiams. 18. Yvonne
Rich. 19. Allen F isher, J r .
S herard School:
.1. A lbertine C. Neely. 2. D elia V. Brinson. 3. M abe-
line F. Floyd. 4. R osetta H. B rantley. 5. Evelyn S.
Gooden. 6. Blanche T. Palm er. 7. Edna B-. Jo rdan . 8.
Corrine M. Hebrone. 9. Nannie H. R ichardson. 10.
Mamie S. Gipson. 11. Ida J . Turner. 12. G eorgia R.
M adden. 13. Jea n A. Palm er. 14. Elouise H atchett.
15. Audrey Ball. 16. B enjam in F. Jones. 17. W illiam s
H. Gatewood. 18. D avis C. H arris . 19. Florence W.
Hicks.
On a m otion by S. H. Kyle, seconded by C. M. Allen
and unanim ously adopted, the term s for the lease to
the City of C larksdale of the one (1) acre site located
in Section 16, Township 27, R ange 4 w ere set at
$250.00 for the duraton of the 99 year lease.
A motion w as m ade by G raham B ram le tt, seconded
by J. F. Hum ber, J r ., to em ploy m ale faculty m em
bers of the J r . and Sr. High Schools to drive the activity
busses for next year w here it is possible to do so.
The ra te of pay is to be a $45.00 per month.
The Superin tendent w as instructed to make a sug
gested plan by next m eeting as to how to increase the
pay for the regu lar bus drivers.
The B oard approved the request of Rev. H erbert
G addy to hold a rev ival in the Sunflower School
192
auditorium for two weeks during the sum m er m onths.
A committee is to be appointed by Rev. Gaddy to act
as custodians of the building and a fa ir am ount is to
be paid for the utility bills.
On a m otion by G raham B ram lett, seconded by C.
M. Allen and unanim ously adopted, an additional
teach er is to be em ployed for the 1963-64 school session
a t the Jonestow n Attendance Center to teach the
fourth grade.
The Superintendent recom m ended the employment
of Miss L inda Womble as a firs t g rade teacher a t the
Jonestow n A ttendance Center for 1963-64 school term .
S. H. Kyle m ade a motion th a t th is teacher be em
ployed and C. M. Allen seconded the motion which
was unanimously carried .
S. H. Kyle m ade a motion, seconded by G raham
B ram lett and unanim ously acfopted, th a t the m anag
e r’s house located in Section 16, Township 28, Range
4, which land is now under lease to M r. H arvey
Longino, be inspected and if a new roof is needed to
have same installed.
The m eeting adjourned over until ...............................
(S.) S. B. WISE,
(S.) PAUL M. HUNTER.
I do hereby certify tha t the above is a true and
co rrect copy of the m inutes of the Coahoma County
B oard of Education of May 14. 1963. M. B. Ill, P age
246.
193
A certified copy of the above w as filed in the civil
action case No. D-C43-62 in the d is tric t Court of the
U nited S tates for the N orthern d istric t of M ississippi,
Delta division, and was lost.
PAUL M. HUNTER,
(Seal) S ecre tary , Coahoma County
B oard of Education.
MOTION TO AMEND PLEADINGS TO CONFORM
TO THE EVIDENCE.
Filed Aug. 3, 1963.
In the United S tates D istrict Court, for the N orthern
D istrict of M ississippi, D elta Division.
Noelle M. H enry, Plaintiff,
vs.
Coahom a County Board of Education; P au l M. Hunter,
Superin tendent, et al., D efendants.
Civil Action No. D-C-43-62.
Plain tiff, pu rsuan t to the provisions of Rule 15(b),
F ed e ra l Rules of Civil P rocedure, moves the Court for
leave to am end the com plaint here in to conform to the
evidence introduced a t the tria l of the cause as fol
lows:
I.
By amending p a rag rap h 2 of the Complaint to read :
This is a proceeding for a prelim inary and perm a
nent injunction enjoining the Coahoma County Board of
194
Education, its m em bers and its Superintendent, from
refusing to re insta te the plaintiff Noelle Henry to her
position as a teacher in the Coahom a County School
System because she and her husband, Dr. A aron
H enry, a re m em bers of the N ational Association for
the A dvancem ent of Colored People (NAACP), and
engage in certa in civil righ ts activ ities pro tected by
the U nited S tates Constitution. M oreover, plaintiff
sues to enjoin defendants from refusing to offer h er
a contract because said refusal, according to the evi
dence, was based on the re fu sa l of defendan t Super
in tendent to recom m end her for employm ent and th is
refusal is based on the following: (a) D efendant Super
in tendent had h eard th a t p la in tiffs husband had been
convicted of d isturbing the peace, bu t had no fu rth er
knowledge thereof; (b) said defendant had h eard
th a t p la in tiff’s husband w as defendant in a libel suit
but had no fu rth er knowledge thereof; said defend
an t had h eard th a t p lain tiff would be defendant in a
suit to set aside a fraudulent conveyance, said knowl
edge having been learn ed from counsel for plaintiffs
in said suit, but defendant herein had no further knowl
edge thereof.
This action also seeks to enjoin the defendants from
requiring plain tiff to file y early affidavits listing all
organizations to which she belongs an d /o r regu larly
contributes.
II.
By amending the introductory section in paragraph
5 of the Complaint to read:
D efendants, acting under color of the authority
vested in them by the law s of the State of M ississippi
195
failed and refused to offer plaintiff a contract to teach
in the Coahoma County schools for the 1962-63 school
year by reason of the civil rights activities and associa
tions designed to end racial discrim ination, engaged in
by her and her husband. Moreover, plaintiff sues to
enjoin defendants from refusing to offer her a contract
because said refusal, according to the evidence, w as
based on the refusal of defendant Superin tendent to
recom m end her for em ploym ent and th is refusal is
based on the following: (a) D efendant Superin tendent
had h eard th a t p la in tiff’s husband had been convicted
of disturbing the peace, but had no fu rth e r knowledge
thereof; (b) said defendant had h eard th a t p la in tiff’s
husband w as defendant in a libel suit but had no fu r
th e r knowledge thereof; and defendant had heard th a t
plain tiff would be defendant in a su it to set aside a
fraudulen t conveyance, said knowledge having been
learned from counsel for p laintiffs in said suit, but
defendant herein had no fu rth er knowledge thereof.
III.
By am ending parag raph 5 of the Complaint by add
ing subsection ( i ) :
(i) On or about M arch 14, 1962, P au l H unter, the.
Superintendent of defendant Board read in the new s
paper th a t Dr. Aaron Henry, p la in tiffs husband, had
been a rre s ted on a m ora ls charge and convicted in
a Justice of the P eace Court of d isturb ing the peace,
and determ ined a t th a t point not to offer plain tiff a
contract for the 1962-63 school year. As a resu lt of a
w ritten denial by plain tiff’s husband of the charges
brought against him, including a charge th a t he w as
being prosecuted because of his civil righ ts activities,
196
a libel su it w as filed against him on A pril 25, 1962,,
by the a rre s tin g officer and the Coahoma County
prosecutor. On M ay 15, 1962, the plain tiffs in the
libel action filed a suit against p la in tiff h ere in ch arg
ing a fraudu len t conveyance to her of D r. H enry’s
property , which action is pending. Superin tendent
H unter now sta tes th a t these th ree suits provided the
basis on w hich he determ ined not to offer p la in tiff a
teaching contract for the 1962-63 school year.
IV.
By am ending parag rap h 8 of the C om plaint to read :
P la in tiff’s teaching record in the defendan ts’ schools
has been excellent, and the defendan ts’ decision not
in the NAACP, her husband’s leadersh ip in the
NAACP’s p rogram to end racial segregation in schools
and other public facilities. To th is extent, refusal to
renew her contract denied to her due process of law
and the equal protection of the law s secured by the
F ourteen th Am endm ent to the United S tates Constitu
tion. M oreover, the refusal to employ, allegedly be
cause of h er husband’s conviction of disturbing the
peace and civil litigation which ensued th e reafte r, w as
a rb itra ry and capricious, violating plaintiff’s righ ts to
due process of law and the equal protection of the
law s and constitutes a bill of a tta inder under the
F ourteen th A m endm ent to the United Staes Constitu
tion.
V.
By am ending paragraph 2 of the W herefore Clause
to read:
197
2. E n ter a p relim inary and perm anent injunction
requ iring the denfendants, th e ir agents, employees,
successors, and those acting in concert w ith them, to
offer plain tiff a teaching contract in the Coahoma
County public schools and to continue such contrac
tu a l basis w ithout regard: to p la in tiff’s constitutionally
pro tected m em bership in the NAACP, h er husband’s
m em bership and leadersh ip activity in behalf of civil
righ ts generally and the desegregation of the public
schools in p a rticu la r, and w ithout refusing said
teaching co n trac t for a rb itra ry reasons including the
conviction of plaintiff’s husband in a s ta te Justice
of the P eace Court on disturbance of the peace charges
and civil litigation growing out of p lain tiff’s husband’s
assertion th a t such conviction w as p a rt of a cam paign
of harassm en t because of his civil righ ts activities.
(S.) R. JESS BROWN,
(R. Jess Brown).
125% North Parish Street,
Jackson, M ississippi.
DERRICK A. BELL, JR .,
(D errick A. Bell, J r . ) ,
JACK GREENBERG,
CONSTANCE BAKER MOT
LEY,
A ttorneys for P laintiff.
10 Columbus Circle,
New Y ork 19, New York.
198
OPINION.
Filed Dec. 26, 1963.
(Title O m itted.)
P la in tiff filed h e r com plaint against the County
Superin tendent of Education and the B oard of E du
cation of Coahoma County, M ississippi, alleging th a t
the board had failed to reh ire her as a schoolteacher
for the school y e a r 1962-1963 because she and her
husband a re and w ere engaged in certain civil righ ts
activities w ith goals and objectives co n tra ry to the
policies an dviews of defendants. She seeks injunctive
relief to requ ire th a t defendants reh ire her as a teach
er. Through inform al assistance from the Court
and w ith the cooperation of counsel for defendants
technical requ irem en ts of process w ere perfected or
in effect w aived in o rder to m ake the case triab le
and to avoid any fu rth e r unnecessary delay. I t w as
heard by the Court sitting w ithout a ju ry in com plaint
and answ er. At the conclusion of the hearing the
Court directed th a t the case be subm itted on m em
orandum briefs of the parties. W ithin the tim e fixed
for p lain tiff’s b rief to come in, she m oved to amend
h er complaint under Rule 15 (b ), F edera l Rules of
Civil P rocedure, to conform to the evidence by adding
as an additional ground for the re lief sought a llega
tions th a t defendants failed to re-em ploy plain tiff be
cause of her husband’s involvem ent in law suits and
a crim inal prosecution and the possibility th a t p lain
tiff would be joined in a suit to set aside as fraudulent,
conveyances of n roperty m ade to her by h e r husband.
This motion is opposed bv defendants and w as taken
199
with the ease for consideration on briefs. T hat m otion
will be dealt w ith first.
P la in tiff and h e r husband a re both N egroes and
the suit as originally filed was p red icated on the
theory th a t defendants did not re-employ plain tiff
because of her activities and the activ ities of her
husband in the field of civil righ ts for m em bers of
the Negro race. While the underlying prupose of the
ru le is to perm it final disposition of a case on the
evidence ra th e r than on pleadings, th is proposed
am endm ent would in fac t alm ost en tirely change the;
ch arac te r of the case. In addition, here we are con
fronted w ith a pecu liar situation which p resen ts ai
serious problem of notice and an opportunity to be
heard w ith a full and fa ir opportunity to develop
evidentially the point of inquiry now raised as an issue
in the case for the first tim e by the m otion to amend,
severa l days a fte r the hearing w as over. The evidence
which forms the basis for the motion came into the
case in response to questions from the bench. It did
not resu lt from nor w as it developed by questions
from counsel. And, it cam e in over objection by p lain
tiff.
It w as then and is now quite obvious that neither
side had prepared to try the case w ith th is a rea of
inquiry in mind. It w as equally apparent th a t neither
side a t the hearing considered th a t the Court’s in
quiry had in jected a new issue into the case. W ith
reasonab le notice there can be little doubt but that
this aspect of the controversy could be much m ore
fully developed.
Second thoughts now m ake it seem th a t this Court
m ight have been derelict in not d irecting a supple
200
m ental hearing, w ith reasonab le notice, for the full
evidential developm ent of only th is one aspect of the
controversy . Undoubtedly, if plain tiff had m oved
prom ptly to am end a t the close of the hearing such
a course of action then would have been followed.
M odern concepts of justice under our notice p rac tice
seem to dictate, in this situation, w ith the incom plete
developm ent of th is a re a of inquiry, th a t the am end
m ent be not now, a t th is late date, allowed.
“As has been pointed out earlie r, how ever, fa ir
notice rem ains essential, and pleadings w ill not be
deem ed am ended to conform to the evidence because
of a supposed ‘implied consent’ w here the circum
stances w ere such th a t the other p a rty w as not put
on notice that a new issue was being raised * * *.
The righ t to am end to conform to proof is necessarily
dependent upon the individual fac ts and circum
stan ces .” B arron & Holtzoff, Federa l P rac tic e & P ro
cedure, Vol. 1-A, § 449, page 792.
Accordingly, the m otion to am end will be overruled.
However, in o rder th a t the Court of Appeals m ay
have the benefit of th is Court’s views w ith respect
to the incomplete development of the “law suit” aspect
of th is case, in the event of an appeal, it will be
d ealt w ith just as if the p lain tiff’s motion to am end
had been susta ined here.
In order to put all of the questions in th is case in
proper perspective the s ta tu to ry system which exists
in the S tate of M ississippi for the em ploym ent of all
teachers in such a school system as th a t w ith which
we a re concerned in th is case m ust be understood.
201
Briefly, th is system is th a t teachers have no tenure,
but a re employed on a one year con tract basis. These
contracts develop by the principal of each a ttendance
cen te r recom m ending to the county superin tendent of
education teach ers for em ploym ent in his school. If
the county superin tenden t ag rees w ith these recom
m endations, he recommends to the county board of
education th a t the people so recommended be em
ployed for th a t school as teach ers for the nex t school
year. If the county superin tendent does not agree w ith
the recom m endations m ade by the principal, he makes
recom m endations on his own in itiative. In e ither event
the board of education is pow erless to employ anyone
as a teach er in such a public school system unless
th a t person is recommended by the county superintend
e n t! This question was specifically at issue in the
case of Lott v. State, 239 Miss. 97, 121 So. 2d 402 (I960)-
And the Court held clearly th a t the board of education
had no power to employ as a teach e r a person not
recom m ended by the superin tendent of education.
In Lott, the position a t issue w as th a t of principal
of an attendance center. For that position the rec
ommendation to the board originates with the super
in tendent, but the au thority of the board is no dif
fe ren t.2 In th a t case the superin tendent recom m ended
one person to the board for employment in the posi
tion, but the board undertook to employ another who
for political and personal reasons had not been rec
ommended by the superintendent and the superintendent
refused to give the board selected person a contract.
Suit w as to requ ire him to sign the contract. The
Suprem e Court of M ississippi, in ter alia, said:
1 Miss. Code Ann. (1942) § 6282-07.
2 Miss. Code Ann. (1942) § 6282-05.
202
“The difficulty here a rises because the board on
F eb ruary 1 re jec ted one of the superin tenden t’s rec
ommendations and undertook itself to exercise the full
appointive power. It had the righ t to re jec t the rec
ommendation, for cause, but not to m ake the appoint
m en t of one not recom m ended.”
* * *
“However, THE BOARD HAD NO POW ER UNDER
THE STATUTE TO MAKE APPOINTM ENT OF A
PRINCIPAL WHO WAS NOT RECOMMENDED BY
THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT.” (Em phasis
added.)
The evidence here is p lain and uncontradicted th a t
the county superin tendent did not recommend p lain
tiff for employment. Hence, the board w as w ithout
any authority to employ her and should not, th e re
fore, properly be in th is case. The board would be.
properly in the case (if it could be a t all) only if the
superin tenden t had recom m ended plaintiff and the
board had declined to follow the recommendation.
P lain tiff is entitled to no re lief again st the board.
The question ra ised by the proposed am endm ent
to the com plaint, w hich h as been re fe rred to as the
“law suit” p a rt of this case will be dealt w ith next.
Responding to questions put from the bench the
county superin tendent stated th a t the reasons for his
refusal to recommend plain tiff for employment w ere
th a t the husband of plain tiff had been convicted in a
Court of record on a m orals charge; th a t two libel
suits w ere pending against the husband by the Chief
of Police of the City of C larksdale and the Prosecuting
A ttorney of C oahom a County, and, th a t he had been
re liab ly inform ed th a t plain tiff would probably be sued
to set aside as fraudulent, conveyances of property
m ade to h e r by her husband.
In essence as the Court understands it from the
sp arse record m ade on tria l, his position w as tha t
p la in tiff’s husband had become notorious in the com
m unity and th a t plain tiff was “ta rre d w ith the same
b rush” in the public mind by reason of her m arriage
and that she, too, probably would become personally
and unfavorably involved in the public mind w ith the
aforem entioned frau d action. And, th a t because of
these c ircum stances she had becom e unsuited to teach
young children .3 Assuming arguendo for the moment
th a t the superin tenden t’s discretion is subject to judi
cial review , it has long been recognized th a t a te ach
er of young people occupies a sensitive position. For
exam ple, in A dler v. B oard of Education, 342. U. S.
485, 96 L. Ed. 517 (1952) it w as said:
“A teacher w orks in a sensitive a re a in a school
room. There he shapes the a ttitude of young minds
tow ards the society in w hich they live. In this, the
s ta te has a v ita l concern. It m ust p reserve the in
tegrity of the schools. That the school authorities
have the righ t and the duty to screen the officials,
teachers, and employees as to th e ir fitness to m ain
ta in the integrity of the schools as a p a rt of ordered
society, cannot be doubted. One’s associates, past and
3 It is also uncontradicted th a t the superin tendent did
not recom m end ano ther teacher for re-employ-
m ent because of the bad repu tation for m oral m is
behavior of th a t teacher’s spouse.
204
presen t, as well as one’s conduct, m ay properly foe
considered in determ ining fitness and loyalty. PKQM
Ti m e IMMEMORIAL, ONE’S REPUTATION HAS
BEEN DETERMINED IN PART BY THE COM
PANY HE K E E PS.” (E m phasis added).
Thus, it would ap p ear here th a t the superin tenden t
had good cause and exercised a sound discretion, and
that his actions should not now be overturned .
To deal properly w ith the one p rincipal question
p resen ted by the com plaint it is necessary to sum
m arize p lain tiff’s theory w ith respect there to and the
evidence before the Court. The essence of p la in tiffs
theory is th a t she and h e r husband are long time mem
bers of the N ational Association for the A dvancem ent
of Colored People; th a t h er husband is and h as been
M ississippi p residen t of th is organization; th a t these
activ ities a re con tra ry to the policies and views of
defendants; th a t she w as not re-em ployed as a te ach
er because of these fac ts; and, th a t thereby she w as
denied her righ ts co n tra ry to the Constitution of the
United S tates, especially am endm ents XIV and V.
It does not requ ire the citation of any au thority to
susta in the proposition th a t it w as p lain tiff’s burden
to estab lish her case on th is theory by a preponder
ance of the evidence. This she failed to do. In fact,
the plain, uncontradicted evidence is th a t ne ither h er
m em bership nOr the m em bership of h e r husband in
the NAACP. nor the activ ities of e ither or both of
them in working for the goals and objectives of th is
organization had anything to do w ith the re fu sa l of
the county superin tenden t .to recom m end h e r to the
board of education, for reem ploym ent for the school
y ear 1962-1963. _____
205
The evidence does show that she w as employed,
on successive one y e a r contracts, as a teach e r in this
school system for a period of eleven y ears (w ith only
one b reak for one year, which apparen tly was a t her
own choice). It also shows th a t she w as recom m ended
for re-em ploym ent and th a t she w as reem ployed for
m any years a fte r her m em bership and the m em ber
ship, of her husband in the NAAlCP, and the activ ities
of both in the “civil r ig h ts” a re a w ere w ell known to
the defendant superin tendent and his predecessor on
th is office. There a re no rac ia l or civil rights over
tones in this record w ith respec t to p la in tiffs re la tion
ship w ith the public school officials of Coahoma Coun
ty nor w ith respec t to the fac t th a t she w as not rec
ommended for reem ploym ent as a teacher.
The real reason for the refusal of the superin ten
dent to recommend plain tiff for reem ploym ent (which
is uncontradicted by any evidence in th is record) has
been dealt w ith heretofore in discussing w hat has been
called the “law suit” phase of th is case and p la in tiffs
motion to amend.
It also m ust be borne in m ind that p lain tiff had a
one y e a r con tract for the school y ear 1961-1962, th a t
th is con tract w as fully perform ed by the p a rtie s th e re
to, th a t it ran its course and expired. T hat con tract
is not and could nut be in th is case. By its term s and
under the sta tu tes no rights survived its expiration
to any of the contracting parties. D efendants could
not have required plaintiff to accept another contract,
nor can plain tiff now requ ire th a t she be given a new
contract. The fac t th a t she had been employed as a
teach e r for one y ear (or for m ore th an one y ear) gave
h e r no rights to re-em ploym ent for the school y ear
1962-1963, Or for any other year. W hether she would
or would not be employed for ano ther y ear depended
206
entire ly on w hether she would or would not be recom
m ended by the superin tendent. He did not recom
m end her. That ends the m atter.
As w as said also in Lott, supra:
“Although political and factionaly considerations
should not en ter into a recom m endation by a county
superin tenden t and an approval by a county board,
it is not a judicia l function to determ ine the ex ten t to
which those fac to rs affected Lott and the b o a rd .”
The laws of the S tate of M ississippi, as in terpreted
by its Suprem e Court in Lott a re binding on th is Court
in this case since there is no provison of the con
stitu tion or law s of the United S tates to the con trary .
Title 28, U. S. C. § 1652. And, the evidence is wholly
insufficient, as has been said, to m ake applicable here
the constitutional theory relied on by plaintiff.
It also needs rem em bering that it is not now nor
has it ever been w ithin the purview of jud ic ia l power
to m ake con tracts for parties. M onrosa V. Carbon
Black Export, Inc., 359 U. S. 180, 3 L. Ed. (2d) 723,
79 S. Ct. 710 (1959); M em phis & L. R. R. Co. v. South
e rn Export, 117 U. S. 1, 29 L. Ed. 791, 6 S. Ct. 542
(1882).
None of the cases cited by plain tiff can give h er
any rea l comfort. Some of them, for example, deal
w ith the d ischarge of teach ers during the con tract
period. C learly they a re not in point. O thers deal w ith
the power of a s ta te w ith respect to the creation of
s tan d ard s for the adm ission to a profession. These
have no application here. A nother has to do w ith a
suit by Negro teach ers for sala ries equal to those paid
207
for w hite teach ers . No question of salary is involved
in th is case. A nother holds th a t there can be no d is
crim ination in the law w ith reference to the following
of occupations. No such d iscrim ination is at issue here.
All other au thorities cited a re equally beside the
point, w ith the exception of Adler, supra , which in
p a r t supports th is Court’s view of th is controversy.
From what has been said, it seems obvious th a t
plain tiff is not entitled to the p rincipal relief sought
and this Court will not requ ire by injunction th a t she
be re-employed as a teacher in the public school sys
tem of Coahoma County, M ississippi.
A ncillary to the p rincipal re lief sought plain tiff a t
tack s a requ irem ent of state law th a t teach ers an
nually file an affidavit listing all organizations of
which they a re m em bers. Inasm uch as plaintiff in
h er p resen t sta tus as a non-teacher is not affected by
th is requirem ent, th is issue is now moot.
P la in tiff is entitled to no re lief and an order is being
en tered th is date in accordance w ith this opinion.
This the 23rd day of D ecem ber, 1963.
CLAUDE F. CLAYTON,
(Claude F. C layton),
D istric t Judge:.
208
ORDER,
..............(Title O m itte d .) .................................
In accordance w ith the opinion of the Court re leased
th is da te in th is cause, it is,
O rdered: i
(2) T hat the motion of the plaintiff, Noelle M,
H enry, to am end the p leadings to conform with the
evidence shall be and is hereby overruled.
. (2) That the p ray e r of the com plaint shall be and
is hereby denied and the sam e is hereby dismissed.
(3) That the defendants are aw arded costs from
the plaintiff as they m ay have in course been taxed .
This the 23rd day of Decem ber, 1963.
CLAUDE F. CLAYTON,
(Claude F . C layton),
D istric t Judge.
Ent. C O. B. 2, p. 568, on Decem ber 26, 1963.
209
NOTICE OF APPEAL. - — "
Filed Dec. 31,,1963.
In the United S tates D istric t Court, for the N orthern
D istric t of M ississippi, D elta Division.
Noelle M. H enry, P lain tiff, .....
v. Civil Action No. D-C-43-62-
Coahoma County B oard of Education, et al., Defendant-
Notice is hereby given th a t Noelle M. H enry, p la in
tiff in this cause, appeals to the Court of Appeals for
the F ifth C ircuit from this Court’s order of D ecem ber
23, 19-63 denying the re lief prayed for in the com plaint
and dism issing sam e, and overruling p lain tiff’s mo
tion to am end the pleadings to conform w ith the evi
dence.
Dated: December 30, 1963.
D ERRICK A. BELL, JR .,
R. JESS BROWN,
125y2 N. Farish S treet,
Jackson, M ississippi. ■
JACK GREENBERG,
CONSTANCE BAKER MOT
LEY,
DERRICK A. BELL, JR.,
A ttorneys for P lain tiff.
10 Columbus (Circle,
New Y ork 19, New York.
210
PERSONAL BOND ON APPEAL SECURED BY
CASH DEPOSIT.
Filed Dec. 31, 1963.
(Title O m itted.)
The plaintiff, Noelle H enry, having filed notice of
appeal from the judgm ent of th is Court on the 31st
day of D ecem ber, 1963, to the U nited S tates Court of
Appeals for the F ifth C ircuit, herew ith deposits in the
R egistry of the C ourt the sum of Two H undred and
Fifty D ollars, subject to the o rders of the Court as
security tha t said appellant shall p rosecute h e r said
appeal to effect; and th a t said appellan t shall pay to
defendan t Coahoma County B oard of Education, all
costs if the appeal is dism issed or the judgm ent af
firm ed, or such costs as the appellate C ourt m ay
aw ard if the judgm ent is modified.
DERRICK A. BELL, JR .,
A ttorney for P lain tiff.
PL A IN TIFF’S) DESIGNATION OF CONTENTS OF
RECORD ON A PP E A L .
F iled Jan . 4, 1964.
(Title Om itted.)
In conformance w ith Rule 75(a) of the Federal Rules
of Civil P rocedure , p lain tiff hereby files the following
as the designation of the contents of the record on ap
peal, which record will be p repared as provided for
211
in Rule 23(a)(9) of the R ules of the U nited States
Court of A ppeals for the F ifth C ircuit:
1. Complaint.
2. Motion for P relim inary Injunction.
3. Answer to Motion for P relim inary Injunction.
4. Answer.
5. P la in tiff’s In terrogato ries.
61 Objection to In terrogato ries.
7. O rder w ith R espect to P a rtie s .
8. Answer of D efendants Allen and Humber.
9. A ffidavit of Paul M. H unter.
10. M emorandum Opinion and O rder.
11. Answer to Interrogatories.
12. T rial T ranscrip t, Ju ly 29, 1963 (excluding ex
hibits) .
13. Motion to Amend P lead ings to Conform to the
Evidence.
14. Opinion.
15. O rder.
212
16. Notice of Appeal.
17. This Designation.
DEFENDANTS’ DESIGNATION OF CONTENTS OF
RECORD.
F iled Jan . 14, 1964.
(Title O m itted.)
In addition to th a t portion of the record in the above
case designated by plaintiff, defendants desire to des
ignate all exhibits introduced by defendants in said
cause.
GEO. F. MAYNARD, JR .,
(Geo. F . M aynard, J r . ) ,
WM. H. MAYNARD,
(Wm. H. M ay n ard ),
Stevens Building
C larksdale, M ississippi.
WILL S. WELLS,
(Will S. W ells),
Asst. A ttorney G eneral.
S tate Capitol Building,
Jackson, M ississippi.
213
MOTION TO EXTEND TIM E FO R FILING RECORD
AND DOCKETING A PPEA L.
F iled Feb. 10, 1964.
(Title Om itted.)
P laintiff in the above cause ,.p u rsu an t to Rule 73(g),
F edera l Rules of Civil Procedure, through th e ir un
dersigned atto rneys move the C ourt for an o rder ex
tending the time within which the record on appeal
m ay be filed here in and the appeal docketed, up to
and 8ncluding M arch 10, 1964 on the following
grounds:
1. Notice of Appeal to the United S ta tes Court of
Appeals for the F ifth C ircuit w as filed herein by plain
tiff on or about D ecem ber 30, 1963.
2. Since th a t date counsel for both parties have
been endeavoring to correct e rro rs in the Court re
p o rte r’s tran scrip t of the hearing of th is case. Be
cause of the p ress of other m a tte rs , respective counsel
have not been able to complete this process and th e re
fore will requ ire additional time in order to p repare
the tra n sc r ip t for forw arding to : the F ifth C ircuit as
p a rt of the record on appeal.
Wherefore, plaintiff requests that the Court will
en ter an o rder extending the tim e w ithin which the
record on appeal m ay be filed and the appeal dock
eted in the Court of A ppeals to and including the 10th
day of M arch, 1964.
214
D ated: F eb ru a ry 6, 1964.
DERRICK A. BELL, JR .,
R. JESS BROWN,
1251/a N. Farish Street,
Jackson, M ississippi.
JACK GREENBERG,
CONSTANCE BAKER MOT-
LAY,
DERRICK A. BELL, JR .,
A ttorneys for P laintiff.
10 Columbus C ircle,
New Y ork 19, New York.
ORDER.
(Title Om itted.)
P u rsu an t to Rule 73(g), F ed e ra l Rules of Civil P ro
cedure, the tim e for filing the record and docketing
the appeal in th is case is extended up to and includ
ing M arch 10, 1964.
CLAUDE F. CLAYTON,
United S tates D istrict Judge.
D ated: 10 Feb. 1964.
E n tered C. O. B. 2, p. 575, on Feb. 11, 1964.
215
MOTION TO FURTHER EXTEND TIME FOR F IL
ING RECORD AND DOCKETING APPEAL.
Filed M ar. 6, 1964.
(Title Om itted.)
P la in tiff in the above cause, p u rsu an t to Rule 73(g),
F ed e ra l Rules of Civil Procedure, moves the Court
for an o rder fu rth er extending the tim e w ithin which
the record on appeal m ay be filed herein and the ap
peal docketed up to and including M arch 30, 1964 on
the following grounds:
1. Notice of Appeal to the U nited S tates Court of'
Appeals for the F ifth C ircuit w as filed here in by p lain
tiff on or about Decem ber 30, 1963.
2. Counsel for both p a rtie s have p repared and are
exchanging lists containing suggested corrections of
e rro rs in the Court rep o rte r’s tra n sc r ip t of the h e a r
ing in this case. B ecause counsel for both p a rtie s m ust
agree on such corrections, and such corrections m ust
be m ade on the original of the tran scrip t, additional
time will be required in order to prepare the tran
script for forwarding to the Fifth Circuit as p a rt of the
record on appeal.
3. Counsel for defendants have no objection to this
request for an extension of time.
W herefore, plaintiff requests that the Court will
en ter an o rder extending the time w ithin which the
record on appeal m ay be filed and the appeal docketed
216
in the Court of A ppeals to and including the 30th day
of M arch, 1964.
Dated: M arch 5, 1964.
D ERRICK A. BELL, JR .,
R. JE SS BROWN,
125%. N. Farish S treet,
Jackson, M ississippi.
JACK GREENBERG,
CONSTANCE BAKER MOT
LEY,
DERRICK A. BELL, JR .,
A ttorneys for P lain tiff.
10 Columbus Circle,
New York, New Y ork 10019.
ORDER.
(Title O m itted.)
P u rsu a n t to Rule 73(g), F ed e ra l R ules of Civil P ro
cedure, the tim e for filing the record and docketing
the appeal in th is case is extended up to and includ
ing M arch 30, 1964.
CLAUDE F. CLAYTON,
U nited S tates D istric t Judge.
Dated: 6 M arch 1964.
E n tered C. O. B. 2, p. 584, on M arch ’6, 1964.
217
In the District Court of the United States, for the
N orthern D istric t of M ississippi, D elta Division.
I, WILLIAM T. ROBERTSON, Clerk of the United
S tates D istric t Court for the D elta Division of the
N orthern D is tric t of M ississippi, do hereby certify
th a t the foregoing two hundred forty-five (245) pages
are the original pleadings, including D efendants’ Ex
hib its Nos. 1, 2, and 3, designated as the record on ap
peal in the cause, Noelle M. Henry, vs. Coahoma
County B oard of Education, Paul M. H unter, Super
in tendent, et al, to the United S tates Court of Appeals
for the F ifth Circuit.
W itness my signature and seal of office th is 24th
day of M arch, 1964.
WILLIAM T. ROBERTSON,
Clerk,
By MELITA Q. LEN TJES,
(M elita Q. L en tjes),
(Seal) Deputy Clerk.
B. S. Upton Printing Co., New Orleans — 55475