The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1858-06-20
The New York Police Cases and the Court Of
Appeals


DECISION IN rHs CASE OF WILLIAM ooRxAS vs. THE
MKrKoPoLIrAs COMMISSIONERS, ETC.
ms Cour. d Appeals adjourned yesterday. A large
number Of decisions were rendered.
In the OF the People ex rel William German W
The Board Of Metropolitan Police the Judgment OF the
Court stood four 70 four, which arms the Judgment An
nexsd are The opinions Of the Court
Roofnvxr, J-rhn case involves necessarily q single
question. Tho seventh section Of the nev Police act pro-
yides that person shall be from Office ia the
department excep' upoo written charges aer an op
portuniy shall have bcen afforded him Of being heard
hn dcfence. And IN the eleventh session Is declared
that po who shall have been removed from
e police force (essabished BY this scp FOR cause shall
be re appcntcd ~ ,be Bosrd OF Police any Office
said poce force" TIE judgment Of removal rendered By
the Ccmmiscoers against German the reiasor pro
pounccd without notice: n icast without any
notice the lac recognise IN case involving zach
serious consequences the individual charged well
70. ne pubic me case states TIA, the notices Of
hvercd or their couenn communicated 10 the aud
that the reator se DOT aware Of the notice In legal
sense the resor had no "opportunty Of being heard
his defence" The order Of removal Was therefore soid
for want OF jursd'con But, although nudity In ITSELF
m,nvoivs 40 spp1ens deprivation o. isea ngnt hs,
psbiy erroneous shou q not be allowed TO stand With
ou considering be question whether the reiaor has
sgreu, abdcsted ropucsstsc thu office ten
aered 10 him. In shicn he continued BY the ueg
law. any OF be other which have been argued
savisemeps min The case OF wcune shs he 81
the order undcr review shal be ashed on the single
ground of vast az Que notice Judgment the
Court ccordinsly affirmed
HAsRr, J-st the time the act 10 establish q weroco
litao Police orric, went into operation law the re
ature nis ndeu be should be transferred from the
police force a. then existed 20 the new police force for
which the sct provided II needed 20 ne appointment
Dor any forns' ACT ~ acceptance 70 constitute him pa
trolnsp Of the MetrnTolan police Bat aid require his
consent BE could netbsr be made a patrolman, nor
having becone sooh be made 10 in ONCE az nst
ms VIII whether ne 10 tao, rejected the ofce or By his
subsequent scs ~ cOaduc abandoned A. and thus
To be- member Of police force is question son
purposes " ,hs Gaze 10 deemed necessary 10 de-
termine Whether be vas io Office or not the Board
OF Po'ice eo'ersieed charges against him, ana as
sumed 10 try MIN. An order Was made that he
be oismissed from once. These proceedings. we
all agree, were illegal. A charge had been prefer
red assret the re'afor The offence alleged vii
ful dsobedienoe OF orders ard insubordinstou" The
specification Of the charge refusing ~ obey the
orders Of h surerief officer the 18th day OF June"
pear before the Bcsrd Of Police at specified time aud
place 10 10 tbe charge delivered 10 officer
FOR service hot, nsesd Of being served personally
vm left st a station house, where II wm received by
another person, by whom II retained. Neither inc
nctcs nor its coutepts csmo 70 the knowledge OF the
relsoY The officer who bad been charged with the ser
vice Of the notice bad only len such notice At the
station house ~iib person who promised TO deliver ~
the rastor AFFIDAVIT, the service OF such no
tee and upon this proof the Board Of Police proceeded
The time psce specified 10 hear and the
On TIE 2nih ~ June, was adtudRed tha the
charge was established, and that the relsior be
dlsmissed and removed frem the servise OF the
department b. the tn cton n the act under thicn
Ibsss pcocecdiuss vers he'd "a declared thaa no pr