The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-02-16
Important Relative to the Star Police.
AARIHE COURT.
Before Judge Thompson.

MARIkE COURT.
Before Judge Thompson
Joh" CARAT vs. the Mayor, dc. Of NeD York This 40
ton is brought to The salary of the plaintiff as
Lsutsnsnt Of Police from the 2etA day OF July 1853 10
the 18th day q D-c Der 1853 facts agreed upon
between the parties ollows:-rhe piAintin Va
18th May 1851 at ralAry Of $500 per annum and
In April lst2 bscAns First Lieutenant OF Sixth ward
police at 500 Per am, psy.b, every two weeks On
the 26h July. 1853 the plaintiff tried before the
Conmssioners u Polos. and Il Q same day he 70.
eeiyd notice FRI m the Chief OF Police Of which the l
lowing isa copy
TO JoHs GA,nnry L.as.1.n. q r.. si.sh Patrol DI.-
s.y Of Jul, lsss h.y.! been e1smn.siss
s seais s.
from .ae Police Department..
rs: s.
S ~ ~ ELY Ss.f of
Ihe order and judgment referred to n the foregoing
September 1859 said order and judgment was srn.d b.
the other two mmissossrs to ~i City Judge and
the Rseordsr-pAintf having In the meantime applied b
saic commissioners 10 put In further evidence which an.
pica ZION was denied On The IS OF July, 1883 ths
plainf rendered himself to the Chief OF Police for duty
re'ussd-- since which time and until the
Of this aeto. he the plaintiff has necessarily bssn With
tn ~as dismissed vss committed on the III Of nsrss
1853 The first question which seems to present iereH
fr cur consideration isHad the Commissioner Of Pohoe
jurisdiction Of the offence for which the plaintiff vss
tisc sthe offence having been committed on the 7th
day Of March the sot creating the Bard Of Oommi.son
does pps.r II. s1s.sos "a. AD o .ss
for which the plaintiff tried BY the Commission
ers nor It mates that We should hsow to enable n
" arrive ~ correct and sst4ctory conclusion oon
seIniDs the legal rights Of the parties 10 this suit The
eou,sel for the plaintiff con Nndsd the argument
that by the act OF April Is 1852 the Commissioners Are
only authorised to take Of oHsaoes PAINTED
after the st took effect for the that II contains
no express provisions referring 10 retrospective Offences
Its Language being that the Beard Of Con missonsrs NAV
for cause" remove the accused from ONCE; and the
term for cause" nu1 Be oon.trusd IS including only
in qHestion the power TO psos OIL ser restsd
with the Mayor and such could only be exercised
y BIN; Being clearly q opinion that the act Of 1883
SIMPLY transfers The power to from the Mayor to
board OF COMMISSIONER We think there san be no
doubt about ths jurisdiction Of the latter over often 80
the power 70 remove establish any material sutho
rt fol that purpose It only Affects The mode or man
repository where Ii had before been coma led. fhs
Commissioners having jurisdiction Of the offence We
are leIs to consider whether they have rendered q
hnAl Judgment In tbs matter. We in possession
Of copy Of the order Of dismissal signed BY the Mayor
unless we 1sume that contained the notice OF the
observed purpor to contain correct Transcript OF an
oder and gment made by the Commissioner OF po-
ncs" in the paissa csse The most that the defend
anita can claim for the Chief notes h that the Mayor
and If you please ths COMMISSIONER had detsrminad
that the plant 'bs ismisssd but shen the dismsss
Juy ths Commissioners had decided to disamis. tss
plaintiff from the Police Department., he was emit.
Md to have Their judgmsnt pronounced against him
in clear, intellgible, aad unequivocal terms rhe
notice Of the 28th July utterly fails to spprise thu a.
cured OF the rsndiisn Of such Judgment It Is co.,
iu terms may have been signed on the 2oth uIy
only BY the Mayor. In the absence, then, of al
aus opeess Of his 'sn'sssd the
authorized by law by tho over OF Com uniss,n.
srs, TO pronounce Judgment At ali, the order Of dis.
nbsa on the 26th JULY carnN be construed by rs a.
legal Judgment Of the Board OF Commissioners The abb
equsnt signing Of the order q dismissal BY the City
Judge and the Recorder affords us pretty clear iudics
Tn
their judgment ustn the 10th September or that they
considered the order void unless atssed BY their own
signatures II does not appear that the Chief Police
poa essed any authority TO sign and serve the
notice Of the 2eth July But that ia point which need
oreer Of msal BY the Mayor only cd not constitute
, judgment Of the Board Of commissioners; and that
thssfors the plaintiff was not legally dismissed by the
order and notice Of the 26th July Che Chief o, Police
dismisssd the plaintiff the 2sth July. That act
absolutely void, for he had authority to do So
But Old the order Of dismissal become Anal aud valid
Judgment OF the Board OF Comni ON tn, oath az
September, the day which IL signed by the Re-
cordsr and the City Judge This query cannot answer
10 entire satisfaction, for she already stated
copy Of the order the proof II may be in
ferrsd, however, from the ACKNOWLEDGED legal attain
s that cid but there being no evidence before q.
that snch gment ever brought 10 ths kno xedse
Of the plaintiff, v. do NOT feel dtspossd to indulge In
specu tons concerning It farther ,hap to remark that
Ms proceedings OF 30 I'M portant tribunal should con.
Quoted with ~ much reference to system-- heir adg
n&nts pronounced with the solssnty ssd
regularity required 70 be observed la proee.dnvs 10 All
other courts Of justice party accused Of the commits.
ss Of Ar oenss 10 ~ nxsh entitled TO the benefits re-
snltns from the regularity Of pro,ssdng sganst him
as from the dispsaston OF usii:e and squity Ia our
judgment the Board OF nsioners failed 70 proceed
assnst he accused In this ease with that degree
guAIity which be entitled 10 receive at their hands
AID for that and other herein alluded to-ths
Plaintiffs services having been rendered to Chi.f Of
Police the 7sth OF Jaly ard refused and the plaintiff
having been sinse that nms necessarily without shsr
employ Dsnt-judgmeot Asardsc again st the dstssdsps
for two hundred and s1tyswo dollars and afty ceau,
and costs