The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1858-06-20

son shall be removed from ONCE except upoa write
charges PREFER cd seAinm him To lie Board Of Pclice
heipg beasa IN bis defepcep me rsxnrr mazda pv d,
re0rs shows the relssor hsa 40 oppo
snS - Se.Ds nesId No notice was served upon nj
ana ne vas enurey ignorant that proceedings mad pc
instituted against bin until alder seuieooa "a dsmssI
bad been propouooed Uude- these crcumstsn Gee. 81
Hoard OF Police had no authority 10 proceed Their or
Of Dismissal WAS void for want Of jurisdiction. ~
WAS equally 40, whether. ct the time the proceod,pa
were instituted the rei.tor was in ONCE or NOS Is
office a. the tine the charges were pressrr.
aga INST him, the Bard OF Police would have he
served with Do,Ios to appear before them The
ipSs would have been absolutely void; and vsa ~
sh ,ud Dot 30 ALLOW e stand record against the
tAiof Were The only effect Of sentence OF dismissal r
remove the party from Office, he would have no rixns
complain o. such sentsn,e, II, .. the ume II vas pr
nouncod be was already out OF office But /, "a daosrs
By the twelfth section the act organizing tbe HosrS
Pohce that no person who stall ever have been
TON me police force for Cause sha be reAppointeI 3
tence 90 hong - Il stands unreversed IL 70 furnish min
ace evidence that the reator disqualified from
forS n. sss ssosr police tSrcs ooocsdng
70 nave the proceedings against him reversed, q
the ground that their effect, II allowed to stsn2
future II is insisted the part Of the Defendants IN
the decision OF which the relaor complains cannot bs
sie~sa upon cntswari II "a tie counsel tor the d
fepoanS suppose, the order sentence dsmss,nr ~
relasor from Office was exercise OF sdm,pisrauve
executive power, the objection would, uudoubteay. b
won kfVunuoo but tn0 prOceeulnxU n question
be regarded judicial In their character It ia the o
OF ctiordst to Genuine inferior officers trbuoAts ex.s
csiDg Judicial powers within the boundaries their
oictop Tho order 10 question being Judicial proceed
ing, It ba proper subject or revie upon ce-tiorar;
We have Already the relator entitled 10 be hear
before the defendants authorized make toe erds
against him. Not having had this opportunity tue pra
ceednes we're Illegal Upon this ground Alone and ~ith
Out reference TO the question, whether at the time
prooeedS 60 were instituted against him tne reiasor "a
n Office or not the judgment Of the Supreme Court shsu
be sfi-med.
All the Judges conourring, judgment affirmed
In the Of MoCune w. The Board Of Metropolitan P
Ice, decision vas no. made.
In the case Of Peterson vs.. the Mayor, &C., o< Ned
York Judgment reversed and Q rev trA; ordered
Among the decisions OF the Court OF Appeals arc q
following
The People rs. Behsw-The defendant was convio4s|
under the Law Of 1857 for selling liquor without ceos
Judgment affirmed.
The People against Keeler-rhe Court decides the Gov,
erpor has not the power to M vacancies In the office
Justice Of the Peace In New York.
The Ne1o Hdux Railroad Company against Schuyler o
others The Court decides that the Company may brn
an actien against ell she owners OF the spurious stock
eued by Schuyler In suit
LedriK BIotchford and okA-s-involvipg tho valdk
Of the trust created by the North American Trust aa
Banking Company TO secure the payment OF Eve hundre
thousand dollars To the Bank Of the Used States
Grart Bank Of Philadelphia The trust and claim q III
Philsdelfh.a bank WAS sustained by the Court.