25 La. Ann. 73 | La. | 1873
On the twenty-ninth of March, 1870, the relator was appointed Division Superintendent of Education, first division, in pursuance of the third section of act No. 6 of 1870, entitled “An Act.
The above act which created the office authorized tbe removal of the ■division superintendents upon certain contingencies, and the mere fact ■of relator’s removal, which is admitted, is presumptive evidence that it was made for a proper cause. See the case of Desbree v. Voss, 19 An. 210, and Vincent v. Populus, Opinion Book 37, p. 584. It was incumbent on and in the power of relator to show that the removal was without cause or not in conformity to law. This has not been done. In the cases cited by the relator, provision was not made for the removal as was effected, or no proof of a removal was adduced, and they are therefore not applicable to this case.
It is therefore ordered that the judgment appealed from be reversed, and that there be judgment in favor of defendant rejecting the application, with costs in both courts.