The Louisianian. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1870-1871, 1871-03-12

Peter Rellly VS.. Board OF MetrlpOntan
Police.-Sixth District Court, parish of
ns.-The plaintiff claims the thirty
per cent additional pay allowed to the
rank and file of the Metropolitan Police
force, by act No. 70, which became law
on third of March, 1870. go. IL
The defendants pretend, first, that act
No. u does not, i'll absolute terms, grant /
to the petitioners the thirty per cent, but
authorizes the police board to do SO if, IN
their discretion, they deemed it just and
proper. Second, That even If the grant
be beyond the control of the board, that
petitioner is within the excepted class,
having either resigned or been dishonora-
bly, dismissed the force previous to the
passage of the act.
have already had occasion to pass
upon the question raised in the argu-
ment of this cause, as to the character OF
the grant contained in the law of the
third of March, 1870. Since the decis-
ion rendered by this court in June last,
the same point has been presented to the
Eighth District Court twice, and has re-
ceived different solution rom two
Judges presiding in that tribunal. On
the sixth Of August last Judge Emerson,
Ipresiding in the place Of Judge Dibble,
adopted the Interpretation Of the police
board, holding that the Law left it discre-
tionary with them to pass definitely up
on the claim Of policemen for reimburse
ment on account of losses sustained by
discount Of their warrants, and for this
! reason he rejected an application for q
mandamus. ......
On the thirtieth of November, the
3 same question being presented for decis-
ion to Judge Dibble, he held that the law
of the third of March, 1870, vested in the
policeman an absolute right to the thirty
per cent additional, subject, however, to
e the exceptions mentioned. He did not
d consider, the act as comforting discretion
= airy powers upon the board, but as being
strictly speaking mandatory, and inpo-
j., sing purely ministerial duty. go. c..
n 1t seems to me SO plain that Judge
70 Dibble's construction is the correct one
( that I have often wondered how his pre-
decessor on the bench could have deci
,e ded otherwise. ...r. pa.
Ia The act No. p has none of the fea
N lures Of an act investigating the boart
rs with Legislative or discretionary powers
:, even if the body of the act left room TO
v doubt as to its meaning, the preamble
would explain any ambiguity. But, il
" my opinion, there is no necessity TO re
I'd cur to this. The expression, may il
~ the law refers to the assessment to b
Of made, with view OF obtaining funds al
10 eqlate to pay the thirty per cert add
rs tional, and not to the right to the tllirt
AZ per cent. ...-....., ..,,.. -.
"a The same expression is used in the origin,
le Metropolitan Police act, to confer the power [
Al raise funds, but this not intended to leave
u discretionary with the board 10 fix the salary
nc the officers and men. ,.~,,. &c.,. , % ,s
nc Ii is urged that petitioner had either rcsigne
~ or been dismissed the force previous 10 the pa
Us sage Of the law Of the third of March 1870. II
u evidence shows that plaintiff was on the fsc
year 1859, and for six months previously. 4 resi-
~ ration or dismissal subsequent to the expratie
ne of the fiscal year 1869, does not, in my opinio
Gu debar the policemen from the benefits of the &C
o. The additional compensation was not intend,
for services rendered or losses suffered up to Il
We passage of the law of the third Of March, 1877
IN oat merely for services rendered and loss su
II ...ined by discount Of warrants during the fsc
=. year of 1869. ......
>" This the law states in express terms. It wou
"a be vicious Interpretation to hold that und
as statute comforting professsdly benefit for 10
:" es during a certain and fixed period, the condu
d. of the grantee, long after the time when he i
'ie Cured the loss could be investigated with vie
eo to defeat his claim. 1t is more than reasonab
e'r it is just and proper, ana his merit and deme
'se should be coextensive in point of time; or,
ely other words. that he is Unidentified only for t
'eo losses suffered during 1863, that misconduct
'eu ,;cbar him from the bounty must have occur
'e' during that year. .!...,
nay The plaintiff is entitled to Judgment.
ny NOTICES OF BILLS.
Bv Mr.. PIERCE ,t '"- i.
'"l OF hill 10 be entitled an act to provide
the unsettled floating debt and estimated def
encies of the revenue of the city of New Oriea
Wv for the years 1870 and 1871, and to authorize
issue of bonds for the said purpose.