Case ID: ny-st-rep_42/html/0799-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pratt, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People ex rel. Warren Foster v. James Howell et al.
    
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed December 14, 1891.)
    
    Brooklyn bridge—Police—Removal.
    The resolution of the board of trustees providing that charges against a policeman shall be heard by the president of the board, who, in case he concludes that the accused should be dismissed, shall report his opinion and the evidence to the board, is valid, and does not prejudice any rights of the accused. The statute does not require a full meeting of the board at trials.
    Certiorari to review the action of the respondents in dismissing relator from his position as policeman.
    Relator was served with charges alleging that he was intoxicated, arrested and locked up in the station house on a certain date. He appeared before the president of the board of trustees, where a trial was had. The president certified to the board that in his opinion relator should be dismissed, and the board thereupon passed a resolution dismissing him. Relator claims that he was entitled to a hearing before the board before he could be dismissed.
    The board, in 1887, had passed a resolution as follows:
    
      
      Resolved, That the following rules ■ be adopted to regulate the manner of preferring charges against a member of the police force and of examining into such charges. Charges may be preferred against any member of the police force of the New York & Brooklyn bridge by any person for any of the following offenses: 1st. Any criminal offense. 2d. Neglect of duty. 3d. Violation of rules. 4th. Neglect or disobedience of orders. 5th. Incapacity. 6th. Absence without leave. 7th. Conduct, unbecoming an officer. Charges must be made in writing, and must be accompanied by specifications. Charges and specifications shall be filed with the secretary of the trustees.
    A copy with notice that the charges and specifications will be •examined into shall be served on the policeman charged, two days before the day of trial, counting the day of trial as one day, and excluding the day of service.
    Such service shall be as follows : First, by delivering such copy personally. Second, by leaving the same at the place of residence with some person of suitable age. Third, if after due diligence he cannot be found and his place of residence cannot be ascertained, by posting a copy in a conspicuous place in the office of the police force of the bridge.
    The chief engineer and superintendent shall have power to suspend a policeman against whom charges have been preferred without pay until the president or the board shall pass upon the said charges. The charges and specifications shall be publicly examined into at the time and place named by and before the president of the board of trustees. The president shall hear 'the statements under oath of witnesses, offered to support the charge and on behalf of the defendant policeman. The evidence shall be reduced to writing. On due conviction of any offense specified above, the president may in his discretion punish a policeman by reprimand, forfeiture of pay not to exceed one month’s pay. In case the president shall conclude that the policeman should be dismissed from the force he shall report the evidence in writing with his oral or written opinion to the board, and the board shall thereupon determine whether the member shall be dismissed.
    
      Sidney Williams, for relator ; J. C. Bergen, for resp’ts.
   Pratt, J.

It has been well held that a tribunal like the trustees of the defendant herein are vested to some’ extent with discretionary power which authorize it within established rules to take action without the restriction of strict legal rules governing trials in courts of law.

It was clearly competent for the defendants to make the rules stated in their return hereto, and all the proceedings which resulted" in the dismissal of the relator seem to have been regularly complied with. He was served with charges in due form as re-' quired, and given an opportunity to make his defense before Commissioner Howell.

The trial took place before that commissioner, who held the office of president. There is nothing in the statute that requires the whole board of trustees to be present

The only restriction upon the proceeding is that the president who tries an accused person cannot impose a sentence of dismissal. It is somewhat analogous in form to courts martial. The latter courts try offenders and sentence them when convicted, but certain grave punishments cannot be carried out without the approval of a higher power, to wit, the commander in chief. In the case before us, under the statute and the rules adopted by the board of trustees, the accused is tried by the president and sentence imposed, but when the sentence involves dismissal, it must be by vote of a majority of the board.

It would be impracticable and involve much time and expense to require a full meeting of the board of trustees to attend all the trials in every case of drunkenness or unbecoming conduct on the part of policemen, and, hence, the rules wisely ordain that the trial shall take place before one commissioner, to wit, the president, and there the trial ends either in a sentence or in a recommendation for dismissal.

Ho right of the defendant in this case was involved or prejudiced. He had ample opportunity to put in his defense. He was clearly proved guilty and the judgment ought to stand.

Certiorari dismissed, with costs.

Baenaed, P. J., concurs; Dykmah, J., not sitting.