New-York tribune., 1879-12-31
In FAVOR OF MR.. NICHOLS.

SUCCESSFUL IN BOTH POINTS on APPEAL.
DECISION Oh THE SUPREME COURT. GENERAL TERM
MR.. NICHOLS CONFIDENT or REiNsrATF-
MrNT.
Sidney L. Nichols, on his removal from tho Office
of Police Commissioner, obtained from Justice
Westbrook, in the Supreme Court. Special Term, a
writ of certioran for reyiewal of the act of the
Mayor in removing him. Subsequently the Mayor
was directed by the same Justice to make return
TO the writ. Appeal was taken to the General Term
by the Mayor upon both these orders, and the dec-
sion, rendered per curjdm. was handed down yescr-
day. II decides both points in favor Of Mr.. Nichols.
The opinion accompanying the decision reads as fol-
lows:
We OF opinion that writ OF certiorari may
properly be sued ont TO review the action OF ths Mayor
tins character. Tie allowance or such Writ
rcss in the sound discretion OF the court TO when APP
pcaiion is made and this Court will not interfere wth
tue exercise OF such discretion IN allowing the writ
VIII IL does appear that n has been palptDy
abused without considering or in any way passing
upon the merits OF tho case, which We tnink
are not nrOperV before us for that pur
pose we dispose OF the eose upon ane gaouna c,sa
this and that the acton OF the Court IN granting the
same was not an abuse Of its discretion.
In respect the directing the tobe made
and thar Inv The writ of nrohDon heretofore granted
In the case the trial OF the merits OF the proceeding was
sent TO he tribunal IL becomes quite uninp0r
tn determine whether not the Judge should I'M
der he circumstances, have directed return TO be
made and think that proper disposition on the case
is made by dismlSsing he appeal from the order
Tne motion 10 dismiss he appeal from order allow
ing the writ should be denied ana the order snoud o
affirmed.
Mr.. Nichols in unusually cheerful frame
of mind last evening the decision in his Gaze.
His reinstatement as Police Commissioner, he SAID
was only matter of time.
A TALK WITH MR. NICHoLss LAWYER.
John d. Townsend. Mr.. NichOls's attorney con-
yersed freely last evening in regard TO the decision
'The Mayor" said he. appealed from two orders
lssned by Justice Wcstbr. )k. one directing the
writ 10 issue. and the other. the Mayor having de-
layed his return, drectD HIM to make return.
Mr. NchOls's attorneys mo, ID TO dismiss both ap-
peals the ground that neither appeal raised
a practical question: the return having then been
.ilcd. The General Term holds thai u VIII
entertain the appeal from the first order
which in effect denies the motion 10 dismiss tba
appeal but after entering the appeal airlns
the 0rder which produces the same effect as II the
appeal Iad been dismissed mai - ~ leaves me
nrst order IN force. The General Term refuses
10 entertain the appeal from the seconG order
and grants the motion 10 dismiss H. lht
decision hOlds thar "a VIII OF cerlOrarl may ssie 10
review the Mayors action in trying and removing
public officials. his is IN effect holding that the
AlaVOr upon such trials acts as judicial officer or
quasi court for the reason that Wils OF certoiaIi
issue only to review judicial actions Holding that a
writ may be ISSUED 10 the Mayor IN tins case ls
holding also that he ~ the cuStodan oi tue record
because wrlts only lssde 10 such custodians lhls
sustains Justice West or0Oks position that II was
not for the VIII 10 issue 10 the Governor
as custodian of sncn record The decision iiirtneI
holds that while the issuing of VIII IS matter ~
discretion. papers presented 80 justice Mcstbrook
warranted The exercise of thai discretion"
What effect do you anticipate from the de-
cision 7" ~
- The case now goes TO the General Tenn. The
papers upon which the original application was
made 10 Justice WestbrOok Tor the writ, winch
the General Term holds now TO nave been
sufficient. basis for granting the writ,
are identical with the papers, so tar ms there IS
merit them, OF the re. urns filed oy the MAY or.
80 that lt is far tor To assume that the Special
Ierm on argument upon the return, VIII follow
Justice WcstbroOk IN ms opinion, ana reverse the
Mayors Judgment. Should such De TIE detcrmiu.t-
iOu before such Special Term aud the return al tne
Mayor IS rs | have stated, should have but little
fear on appeal from suc4 a DECISION. That the
General Term after th, decision wodlC reverse the
decision OF the Special lerm Al present me cnse Is
precisely where 10 was when Justice NcstbTook was
sitting in Special Term, Chambers Only now a. ls al
the regular Special lcrm and probably VIII Dc
reached before Judge Lawrence IN January"
What Is your opinion as TO the result '" was
My opinion is no different now fgom at first,
thai the gTOssest outrage and VIII be TectI-
fed by the courts. There was not one lOta Of evil
moved, and look upon II as asmpe piece OF pOllti-
:" What has become of the appeal yon took from
the decision 0t the Extraordinary General Tenn
ohibitng Justice WestbrOoK from suing ~
I'VE have appealed from the decision and the
case set down anead of all other civil cases. to be
argued IN Albany on January 13 Mr. NchOls's case
l. affected by this Oniy indirectly. But cOnsider
that 10 due To Justice WeStbTOOk that we
should argue the question. You may remem-
Der that Justice WestbTOOk had made 10
determination, nor had be intinated what DISPOSE
ton he wond make of the question that was 10
come before him only on the order 10 show cause.
i do nosmyself believe that the General Term has
any authority to treat Special Term Judge in
such "A May."