Case ID: ny-st-rep_69/html/0224-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Brown, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People, ex rel., Patrick J. Hughes, App’lts, v. Horatio S. Sanford et al., a Commissioners, etc., Resp’ts.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second De artment,
    
    
      Filed July 26, 1895.)
    
    Municipal Corporation—Fireman—Disoharub—Proof.
    The evidence was held, in this case, to be insufficient to sustain a charge of neglect of duty against a fireman.
    
      Certiorari to review the determination of the board of fire commissioners of Long Island City, in adjudging relator guilty of neglect of duty and dismissing him from the fire department.
    
      Thomas P. Burke, for relator; William K Stewart, for resp’ts.
   Brown, P. J.

This proceeding is a certiorari to review the determination of the respondents dismissing the relator from the position of fireman in the fire department. The respondents were empowered to remove employes for “ incapacity, neglect of duty, or misconduct." The relator was charged with neglecting to feed or water horses left in his charge from nine o’clock p. m. on July 20, to 3:30 p. m. on July 21, 1893. It appears that at 12:30 a. m. July 21st, an alarm summoned the relator and his company to a large fire, and he was on duty there the balance of that night and part of the next day. The only witness called to substantiate the charge was Alexander Grady, the company’s foreman. He knew nothing of the matter himself, but testified that he believed the, charge was true. He swore to a conversation with Hughes, which, it was claimed, amounted to an admission of the charge of neglect. Hughes denied on the witness ptand that he admitted to Grady that the horses were not fed or watered until the afternoon of the 21st, and it appeared by uncontradicted evidence that they were fed about nine o’clock in the morning and were watered about eleven o’clock. The charge of neglect was not proved, and the commissioners were not authorized to dismiss the relator. The order must be reversed, and the relator restored to his position, with $50 costs.

All concur.