The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1858-02-18
Suit Tor the Restoration OF the Old Police.
SUPREME COURr-GENKRAL TERN.


Before Hon. Judges Davies, Cerke and Sutherland
Ne People the relation of Patrick FrrsR u.s. ne Board
Police, GcThs certiorari 10 compel the Board of
Police TO show why they should restore the re-
,or 70 pay and duty is resisted upon ground that
Ne Is not member Of the police. be be not member,
clear that he is not entitled 70 as policeman,
10 be paid as one. The Board place their denial upon
these groundsFirst that upon the organization Of the
Metropolitan Police the reator did not become member
u 1T his consent was necessary TO the transfer from tho
city TO the dsrct poce that consent not gwen and
hereore be never became member Second, that If he
did, by operation Of the law and without any previous
sent, became insas member OF the force, he
withdrew from It; his and declarations show his
election to adhere TO the old organzaon and TO array
nmseH against the order of things. Third that he
oct Of April l5 1857, establishing Metropolitan Police,
undoubtedly intended place the Municipal Police in the
ranks Of the Metropolitan Police they were willing 70
WI may be doubted indeed, whether the Legislature
could do The Office Of Metropolitan policeman very
different from that II Municipal policeman. One is con
nned 70 New York The OTTER mag be sent into any part Of
The four countess Eefeher office, nor charter, or
franchise can snder our system, be forced upon one
Against his will. The only part Of the new act WHICH
scts the question Of the Continuance Of the old force s
he latter part section S2:rIhe police OF the cAy Of
New York shall continue TO do dirty under existing Laws
until the first meeting Of ae Board Of Police, when The
said police shah hold Office ami do duty under the pro
&c ae.ropoIt@ fois:e bsist S~ebY constitueds his
should be read the wofd f they wish to continue 10
s6lce' were inserted after fhe word =" police" But
whether the Legislature could do this not and whether,
without any manifestation Of infeuton one way or the
other the old police were Incorporated into the 1t
should quite clear that they not required TO
remain in against their will The 18th section shows
nat policeman right TO withdraw resign not
intended TO be taken from him. The 9th section shows,
ALSO that the Board had right 70 dismiss from the
vice without trial. for, reduction Of the numoer by
the Supervisors, the Board most Of necessity designate
who are 70 be dropped therefore, whether the in
slant when tho Board was organized snd before signify
ing their election TO accept the act by doing
thing under IT, the Municipal Police became members Of
the Metropolitan Police IL seems clear that they did
the instant become such MEMBER they could still with
draw resign They could DO without notice, and by
acts as we'll IS words. Accepting incompatible office
was always held 30 be election not to continue in
former designations need never TO have been IN
writing unless especially required by statute Here
Me re ator's intention manifested by unequivocal
aets the reator notwithstanding all he said and did,
AeveFtheless became and continued member OF the Me-
ropOltan Police he removed by the Board. There
an order Of removal regular ts face. The Board
had the power TO remove They here intended 10 exer
else the power. If they had not done il because
q The want OF Of two pre- requsites-one charge
on OATH and the other service Of notice Of trial But
there defect in either. The charge by act
hg inspector, and the notice sufficiently served II
was LEFT at the place Of resdence and business of the
htor, with his superior officer The conspring between
he reator and his superior ocer prevented personal
service The relator cannot thus take advantage OF his
swn wrong. III Pckering,7)
The case is still on