the surveyor was unable to get the work done by any one else in the time, and delay would have occasioned great expense. It was stated that he made no profit out of the transaction. The last item in the account, which was paid in March, 1879, was dated 16th March, 1878. By the Public Health Act, 1875, 38 & 39 Vict., c. 55, any member of a local board who "in any manner is concerned in any bargain or contract entered into by such board" shall cease to be such member. It was held that there was ample evidence of a contract with the local board in 1878 for the work which was then done and of the defendant being concerned in the contract.

In Nicholson v. Fields, 7 H. & N. 810; 31 L. J., Ex. 233, F. was a commissioner under a local Act, which provided that a person who after his appointment as a commissioner, should be concerned or participate in any manner in any contract, should thenceforth cease to be a commissioner. It was proved by the minute book of the commissioners, and the production of bills signed by F., that in August, 1859, F. was paid by the commissioners 57. 135. 1d. for timber supplied by him to the commissioners in 1858 and 1859. In November, 1859, he received a further sum of 27. 15., and in May, 1860, 2l. 195. 10d. He also sent to the commissioners an invoice for 45., for lime supplied on 30th March, 16th May, 17th July, and 17th August, 1860. The course of business was for the surveyor of the commissioners to order the materials, and the production of the invoice with the defendant's signature at the bottom was warrant for payment. It was held that F., by being concerned in a contract, had become disqualified, and that the invoice for the 45. for the lime was evidence from which the jury might find that the defendant was concerned or participated in a contract within the meaning of the Act. Pollock, C. B.: This case differs from Woolley v. Kay, 1 H. & N. 307; 25 L. J., Ex. 351, where some members of the court expressed an opinion that a mere casual buying and selling, as, for instance, going into a shop, and buying an article, and paying for it over the counter, would not be a contract or bargain for furnishing, supplying, or selling an article, so as to render the party liable to a penalty if he continued to act as a commissioner. Here there were several invoices, one of them showing a dealing which extended over four months. The amount is trifling, but that is immaterial, for it was intended that every description of dealing by the commissioners should be put an end to so far as legislation could do it, and that the party to a contract should be rendered incapable of exercising the office of commissioner-in other words of dealing with himself. Martin, B.: A case was put of the commissioners buying some trifling article at a shop kept by one commissioner, and paying for it over the counter. It seems to me that this is not a contract within the statute, but I am by no means prepared to say that if articles were to be supplied from time to time on credit, there would not be a contract. The buying a pennyworth of nails may not be a contract, but that is different from supplying lime on credit. Here there was evidence of a continuous dealing and supplying on credit of an article which the commissioners must buy.

As to the nature of the interest in a contract which disqualifies, see Le Feuvre v. Lankester, 3 E. & B. 530; 23 L. J., Q. B. 254; 18 Jur., 894. In that case it appeared that the town council, as the local board of health, ordered certain works to be done, in the course of which it was necessary to erect some lamps and a considerable quantity of iron railing. The superintendent of the works ordered this iron work at a foundry

belonging to an alderman of the borough and his partner (Messrs. Lankester), and they supplied it. The greater part of the work was let to contractors who were to supply the iron work, and it was the contractors who paid Messrs. Lankester for this part of the iron. A few small articles were for extra work not included in the contract, and for these the town council or local board of health paid Messrs. Lankester direct. It did not appear that, at the time the goods were supplied, Messrs. Lankester were aware that any part consisted of extras. It was held that this was not an interest in a contract which disqualified. Coleridge, J.: In the present case, all that is asserted is that the defendant, in the course of his trade, sold certain iron work which was used in carrying out the contract. There is no attempt to show fraud or any previous concert between the defendant and the contractor by which the defendant was to have the benefit of the contractor's custom. This gives the defendant no share or interest in the contract, the existence of which neither affects the price of his goods nor the manner in which he is to be paid for them.

In a case, however, where a Turnpike Act contained a clause prohibiting any trustee from having any share or interest in or being in any manner directly or indirectly concerned in any contract or bargain for making or repairing or in any way relating to the road for which he acts, and from letting out any waggon, horse, &c., for the use of the road, and a trustee of the road let his horse and cart for a certain sum to a contractor for works on the road, to be used in the performance of the works, the defendant was held liable to the penalty. Towsey v. White, 5 B. & C. 125.

In West v. Andrews, 5 B. & Al. 328, the proceedings were taken under sec. 6 of the 55 Geo. 3, which rendered liable to a penalty any person in whose hands the management, control, or direction of the poor was placed who either in his own name, or in the name of any other person, provided, furnished, or supplied for his own profit any goods, materials, or provisions for the support and maintenance of the poor of the parish for which he retained his appointment, or was concerned directly or indirectly in supplying the same, or in any contract or contracts relating thereto, and a guardian having sold five live sheep to the person who had the contract for the supply of meat, &c., for the poor, it was held that the case fell both within the words and spirit of the Act.

In the case of Tomkins v. Joliffe, which came before Mr. Justice Field on the 4th April, 1887, an action was brought to recover from the defendant penalties which he was alleged to have incurred by reason of having acted as a member of the Sandown Local Board after he had become disqualified by reason of his having been concerned in a contract entered into by the Local Board. The defendant was elected a member of the Board in April, 1884, for a period of three years. In March, 1885, the Local Board entered into a contract with C., by which C. undertook to make certain alterations to gas fittings in the Town Hall for £15. In order to effect these alterations it was necessary that scaffolding should be erected. C., who was an ironmonger, employed the defendant, a builder, to erect the scaffolding, and the defendant charged C. the sum of 1 65. C. delivered to the Local Board an account for £15 for the work done, including a charge for the £1 65. in respect of the work done by the defendant. In April, 1885, the defendant acted as a member of the Board. The plaintiff claimed that under and by reason of the circumstances the defendant had become disqualified, and was liable to pay the penalty sued for, viz. £50 and costs. It was

stated that though the defendant sent in his bill to C., when he found that the chairman of the Local Board raised an objection, he withdrew the bill and had received no payment whatever for what he had done. The defendant was held to have been "concerned" in the contract in question, and judgment was given for the plaintiff for £50 with costs.

In Nutton v. Wilson, L. R., 22 Q. B. D. 744; 58 L. J., Q. B. 443; 37 W. R. 522, an action was brought to recover a penalty of £50 under the Public Health Act, 1875, from the defendant, on the ground that whilst a member of a Local Board he had been concerned in two contracts made by the Local Board, and had acted as a member after being disqualified by reason of having been so concerned. The defendant, who was a joiner, was elected a member of the Local Board in 1885. In October, 1886, the Local Board entered into a contract with H. for the supply of warming apparatus for the offices of the Local Board. H. found that certain joiner's work was necessary in the course of fitting up this apparatus, and he went to the defendant's shop and asked his foreman to do it. The work was done by the defendant's workmen, and the bill for it to the amount of £195. was paid by H. to the defendant. In December, 1886, the Local Board contracted with one B. for the supply of a water-tank, and similar transactions took place between B. and the defendant, the defendant's bill, amounting to £3 145., being paid to him by B. Mr. Justice A. L. Smith considered that he was bound by the decision of Mr. Justice Field in Tomkins v. Joliffe, and gave judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed. It was contended for the appellant that he was not in any manner concerned in the contracts: he had only indirectly assisted in carrying them out after they were made. For the respondent it was urged that the defendant himself moved the acceptance of the contracts of H. and B., and therefore knew of the contracts. The work was done on the premises of the Local Board, and in one case the defendant received the invoice. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, the Master of the Rolls observing, “Here a member of a local board whilst acting as such has done part of the work which contractors with the board had contracted with them to do. As he did part of the work under the contracts, and was paid for the work that he did, it is impossible to say that he was not in any way concerned in these contracts."

See also Pope v. Backhouse, 8 Taunt. 239; Baker v. Waite, 1 A. & E. 514; and Davies v. Harvey, 43 L. J., M. C. 121; 30 L. T., N.S., 629, with respect to penalties on guardians supplying goods and materials.

The proviso excepts from the operation of the section "any sale of land or loan of money to a school board." The Public Health Act, 1875, Rule 64, Sched. 2, provides that "no person shall vacate his office by reason of his being interested in the sale or lease of lands or in any loan of money to the local board." It was held in R. v. Gasharth, L. R., 5 Q. B. D. 321: 49 L. J., Q. B. 509; 42 L. T., N.S., 688; 28 W. R., 596, with reference to these words that "to the local board" only applied to any loan of money, and that a person who held a lease from a local board of a sewage farm with the ordinary covenants in the lease, was not disqualified for holding office as a member of the local board.

Where a contract is prohibited by this section, the contract cannot be enforced. See Mellis and Pym v. Shirley and Freemantle Local Board (L. R., 16 Q. B. D. 446; 55 L. J., Q. B. 143; 53 L. T., 710; 34 W. R., 187). In Cope v. Rowlands (2 M. and W. 149), which was cited in the

case referred to, Baron Parke said: "It is perfectly settled that where the contract which the plaintiff seeks to enforce, be it express or implied, is by implication forbidden by the common or statute law, no Court will lend its assistance to give it effect. It is equally clear that the contract is void if prohibited by the statute, although the statute inflicts a penalty only, because such a penalty implies a prohibition."

As to the office of treasurer, when no remuneration is assigned to the officer, see note on sec. 35.

See also sec. 29 (note 3), and clauses 12 & 14 of the Second Schedule, first part, of this Act, and sec. 8 of the 36 & 37 Vict., c. 86, post, as to other disqualifications.

As to proceedings for recovery of penalties, see sec. 92, and 36 & 37 Vict., c. 86, secs. 23, 24, post.

Appointment of Officers.

35. A school board may appoint a clerk and a treasurer and other necessary officers, including the teachers required for any school provided by such board, to hold office during the pleasure of the board, and may assign them such salaries or remuneration (if any) as they think fit, and may from time to time remove any of such officers; but no such appointment shall be made, except at the first meeting of such board, unless notice in writing has been sent to every member of the board. (1)

Two or more school boards may arrange for the appointment of the same person to be an officer to both or all such boards. (2)

Such officers shall perform such duties as may be assigned to them by the board or boards who appoint them. (3)

(1) The appointment of an officer may be made by a minute of the board, signed by the chairman and countersigned by the clerk, if any. An appointment so made is as valid as if it were made under the seal of the board (Schedule 3, No. 7). See also Scott v. The Great and Little Clifton School Board, p. 129. The Inland Revenue Commissioners held that under the Stamp Act, 1870, appointments by school boards were liable to stamp duty, and that, if there was no other instrument, the minute of appointment should be stamped. But the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1875 (38 Vict., c. 23), has repealed the provisions as to stamp duties on appointments, and consequently this duty is no longer payable by the officers of school boards.

For definition of the term "teacher," see sec. 3. Sec. 14 requires that every school provided by a school board shall be conducted as a public elementary school, and sub-sec. 4 of sec. 7 provides that a public elementary school shall be conducted in accordance with the conditions required to be fulfilled by an elementary school in order to obtain an annual parliamentary grant. These conditions cannot be fulfilled unless, subject to the exceptions provided for in Art. 82 of the New Code of the Education Department (see p. 519), the principal teacher is certificated .

If this condition is not satisfied, the salary of the teacher is liable to be disallowed.

The teachers recognised by the Education Department are (a) candidates on probation; (b) pupil-teachers; (c) assistant teachers; (d) provisionally certificated teachers; (e) certificated teachers; (ƒ) additional female teachers approved by the Inspector; (g) evening school teachers.

The recognised teachers employed in any school form the school staff. The Code of the Education Department contains the following provisions as to the school staff:-

As soon as the Inspector's annual report is received a list of the school staff, as settled by the decision of the Department, must be entered in the log-book, and signed by the correspondent of the managers. This entry will show what was the school staff at the beginning of the school year. An entry must be made of any change in the staff occurring during the school year. Art. 72.

In estimating what is the minimum school staff required, the Department consider the principal certificated teacher to be sufficient for an average attendance of 60, each additional certificated teacher for an average attendance of 70 if certificated before 1st January, 1891, or if trained in a training college, and of 60 if certificated after 1st January, 1891, and not so trained, each assistant teacher for an average attendance of 50, each additional female teacher approved under Article 68, and each pupil-teacher for an average attendance of 30, and each candidate on probation for an average attendance of 20. Art. 73.

Where vacancies in the office of any teacher, other than the principal teacher, occur in the course of a school year, and are duly reported to the Department, temporary monitors employed in place of the teachers causing the vacancies are recognised as part of the school staff, one monitor being accepted as sufficient for an average attendance of 30, and two monitors as sufficient for an average attendance of 60, provided always that the vacancies are supplied not later than the first day of the next school year by the appointment of duly qualified teachers. Árt. 74.

Notice occld at once be given to the Department of any change in the school staff shouurring during the school year; and the name of the school in which the new teacher was last employed should be specified. Teachers appointed in the course of a school year are, as a rule, recognised by the Department only from the date at which their appointment is notified to the Department. Art. 75.

No business involving the appointment or dismissal of a teacher, or any new expense, or any payment except the ordinary periodical payments, is to be transacted unless notice in writing of the business has been sent to every member of the board four days at least before the meeting (36 & 37 Vict., c. 86, Schedule 3, post).

The officers are to hold office "during the pleasure of the Board.” In Hayman v. Governors of Rugby School, 43 L. J., 834, with reference to the provision in the Public Schools Act, 1868, that the head masters of the schools to which that Act applied should hold office during the pleasure of the governing body, Malins, V.C., said: "It is in my opinion clear that the plaintiff and all the head masters of the schools to which the Act applies hold their offices at the pleasure merely of the new governing body, and are consequently liable to be dismissed without notice, and without any reason being assigned." See also R. v. Governors of Darlington School, 6 Q. B. 682; 14 L. J., Q. B. 687, and Teather v. Poor