Case ID: ny-st-rep_45/html/0329-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.—", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People ex rel. William L. Markell v. Stephen B. French et al.
    
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
    
    
      Filed March 31, 1892.)
    
    Municipal corporations—Police—Removal.
    Relator was removed from the police force on a charge of intoxication. He claimed that the intoxication was produced by taking the prescription of a doctor; but the doctor testified that the things which relator admitted having done would not account for his condition. Meld, that - there was no such preponderance of evidence against the conclusion of the commissioners as called for a reversal of their action.
    Certiorari to review the dismissal of the relator from the police force.
    
      W. McKinley, for relator; J. J. Delany, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam.—

It is a familiar principle governing the disposition of cases such as the one at bar, that the power of the court to reverse the proceedings is limited to those cases where there is no evidence to support the conclusion arrived at, or if there is some evidence, the preponderance of proof is so great against such conclusion that if it were the verdict of a jury such verdict would be set aside as against the evidence.

In the case at bar the relator was accused of drunkenness, and the strong preponderance of evidence seems to have been in favor of that conclusion. The excuse made by the relator that he became intoxicated by talcing the prescription of a doctor does not-seem to be at all substantiated by the evidence; his own physician being called as a witness, and virtually testifying that those things which the relator admitted having done would not account for the condition in which he undoubtedly was at the time in-question.

There was therefore no preponderance of evidence against the-conclusion arrived at by the respondents on the trial; but.on the contrary, the weight of evidence seems to be in accordance with such conclusion.

The writ should be dismissed, with costs.

Van Brunt, P. J., O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ., concur.