*1 82 County of Education
It is asserted that the Carroll Board grand from illegally constituted because the lists which grand jury was drawn that elected the board members were only digests County chosen from the tax and not from Carroll County. the voters’ lists of Carroll The official actions of the County prima members of the Board of Carroll valid, are facie legality of the election to officeof such members can not collaterally proceeding be attacked in a for validation of bonds. Brown v. Flake, (29 Newton, 267); 102 Ga. DeLoach v. 528 SE (3) (68 Ga. 342); Roberts, 134 Tucker v. 739 SE 20 AC (1) (108 (3) 222); Smith, 151 Ga. Morris v. Ga. 753 438 SE 153 468); Stephens (8) (114 District, School SE Ga. 154 275 197); (6) (116 Powell, 624); SE Clements v. Ga. SE Jen 278 nings District, New Bronwood School SE
Questions as feasibility project to the which bonds transcript are be issued can not be considered, since evidence in the validation has been included in the record before this court. questions constitutional made the inter
Many of the decided, adversely vention had been the contentions Building Authority, v. State School intervenors, Sheffield this court considered a number 590), where pp. 241-246, on the cre constitutional attacks Act ating Building Authority, predecessor School Au State Georgia (Schools). thority Authority Education In the foregoing opinion only division of this we have dealt argued assignments of error which were intervenors their brief. All the Justices concur. affirmed. al. CLARY v. et MATHEWS enjoin is an action to fler,
Underco appointed by Disciplinary Board holding from State Bar to determine whether existed for the of a formal issuance complaint against a member of the bar the reasons that not tribunal were the members said Georgia; that the rules of the State accordance with ex- formed and tribunal has. guilt of opinion reference pressed preju- unalterably completely against and is Disciplinary cause; him in said diced *2 it issues judge and because acting prosecutor, as Board is griev- of is a member the thereof the by it; members are other two tribunal, ance and the hearing “fair” petitioner of a deprive' facts the all of which protection law under equal him and deny process and due the States. Constitution of United the of the 14th Amendment remedy at law alleges adequate that he has no petitioner The damages equity in- irreparable unless and that he will suffer appeal injunction the the trial court denied tervenes. The judgment. from that Held: of due comply requirements order to Generally, “In body must hearing granted by an administrative' process, the impartial officer, board, an one, a full and fair before irreg but mere body hostility, prejudgment; bias, free hearing to a cannot be made the ularity or error with process, of due and a cannot basis of a claim of denial hearing an as a denial complain of a defect in administrative hearing long a full of constitutional as as he obtains in issue. fact that question a court on the The judge does not agency administrative is both the accuser and especially where an deprive process law, accused of due may had to agency appeal from the determination (2). ques “All 862, However, 628b the courts.” 16A CJS § may not involve constitutional qualification tions personal bias, policy, state validity. kinship, matters of Thus generally to be matters interest, remoteness of would seem Tumey Ohio, merely legislative discretion.” 273 U. S. 1243). 437, 749, ALR Jones 510, LE See SC State, find reviewing Georgia, we
Upon the rules therein to afford the member that the intent was impartial stages against at provision for however, entering such proceedings; hearing. at See petitioner 873). Therefore, does not complete may at law resort have a serving on such equity to a court of restrain a member from alleged, prejudiced is, when he him in cause. proof petitioner stated offer which counsel for the he would allegations petition hearing on support question temporary injunction of a have been suf- would judge
ficient to authorize the trial in his discretion to issue injunction. deny injunc- Accordingly, it was error tion the introduction of evidence. without concur, except Grice, J., reversed. All Justices who dissents.
Argued November Bobby Hugh 'Cook, Palmour, Martin, ap- Lee Cook & J. pellant. appellees. Akin, for
Warren dissenting. study From I Justice, made, Grice, injunction appellant exists because the conclude that no basis not afforded an was *3 probable grievance
a cause hear- member of the by ing provided for 4-204 the State Bar Rule requires that This rule preliminary investigation a to be made to determine “shall cause a lodging complaint” if for the formal cause exists provides that at such “The opportunity shall afforded an to be heard with complaint, either in or affidavit.” right challenge, The absence in these rules of tlie to in that investigative a stage, partiality -of member of the inadequate remedy tribunal does not amount to an at law. stage principle grand jury This is similar in to that of a con- sidering whether to return an indictment. that In situation there no opportunity grand jury upon members of the ground partiality. óf partiality trial. states that after service of formal com- plaint, pre-trial meeting shall trial, but be held and that pass upon questions concerning tribunal “shall qualifications any member of the Tri- subject to review sufficiency bunal and as herein- review Disciplinary Board provided.” after provides foregoing rule my view the
In attorney, as-well adequately protects the at law and public. and of the profession as those disci- of these rules is that added that the intent It should be practicable by itself, the bar taken insofar as plinary action be expeditiously possible proceedings handled as that involved. publicity as to those that there be no undue injunction-^which engrafting of a suit for my opinion In is not upon disciplinary determined must be first — is an innovation in administrative in line intent. It duty it is to investigating amounts to those' whose law that it investigation. it, found no basis either make logic. decisions, in court statutes, reversing, judgment; affirm the I would Instead GEORGIA BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC v. BALL.
EXAMINERS *4 January Submitted Jr., Harold N. Attorney General, Hill, Bolton, K.
Arthur Attorneys General, appellant. Cocalis, Assistant Alexander Twitty, Jr., appellee. Frank Twitty Tvoitty, S. & Presiding appeal seeks review of Almand,