New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-01-28
THE GENERAL TERM OvERRULED.

A DECISION IN FAVOR OF MR. NICHOLS BY THE
COURT OF APpEALs-RIGHr or PUBLIC OFF,
CIR TO BIZ HEARD BEFORE REMOVAL
tBY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNEl
ALBANY, Jan. 27-The Court of Appeals
handed down decision to-day in the noted case OF
Sidney p. Nichols who CLAIMS that he was unlawfmiy
removed from the Office of Police Commissioner by
Mayor Cooper OF New-York. Ii will be remembered
that thus was appea, from opinion rendered by
the Extraordinary Term Of the Supreme Court sun
moDed by Governor Robinson to consider the case.
Judges Davis. Brady and Barrett. who composed that
Court In effect decided that another Judge OF the ST.
preme Court fudge westbrook had exceeded bis
authority In issuing writ virtually proposing TO review
Mayor Coopers action IN removing rNchois The Court
4 Appeals reverses the opinion expressed by the
oJudges Of Extraordinary Term and fully susains
Judge westbrook In all the positions taken by him in the
The opinion was written by Judge Danforth. and was
CONQUERED In by all the other members OF the Court.
Under 1t the lawyers of Mr. Nichols can procure an
ordor to show why the relatcr Nichols should
have Judgment reversing the action OF the Mayor
iu removing him, upon the return or answer which the
Mayor made to the writ.
Tue effect of the decision will therefore be bring the
case ut again of the Judges OF the Sn
preme Court in NewYork, and 1t renders possible the
summary Ousting OF Police Commissioner MacLean
from the Board Police and the OF Mr.
Nichols Tue most important points In the decision OF
the Court OF Appeals are gwen below:
THE DECISION.
The record shows that IN May. 1876, the defendant
Nichols was appointed Commissioner OF Police. He
accepted the appointment and entered upon the duties
salary $4,000 IL was thus IN office of honor prot,
to enjoyment of which he entitled for the full
discharge its duties. The relator was the Mayor
Sd ne r remove ap% the but o
cause and after opportunity to be nesrd"
The Is not arbitrary one, to be exercised at
Measure only lust and reasonable grounds,
aud then until after notice 70 the person charged
Tho proceeding must be instituted upon specific
charges sufficient their nature to warrant the
moya then, unless admitted be proven to be true
nesses produced to support the charges, call
others IN his defence, and in these and other
1t follows. therefore, that the proceeding is JUDICIAL
ieet to r$vew by writ Of eertorar issued by the sG-
preme Court. It is PROVIDED by the Constitution that
and equity 1t follows that It's Jurisdiction can DE Inn
tied neiiher by the Legislature nor by any
Se IT csnno be- doubted that for the due ana orderly
conduct OF gation and causes certain steps and pro
be required 10 be taken al specified terms yet any such
regulation must be subject 10 the control OF the Justice
The power Of the General Term to grant
Term was given by statute. to be EXERCISED
in the same manner and with the same effects
In ali respects the like proceedings when tbs
directed TO inferior Courts and the Judges thereof IN
such cases the inquiry relates "luri. dicon simply"
Tor the writ unless involves doing Of something.
winch Is contrary TO the general laws OF the land"
The remedy prohibition may DO had 10 pre- the
violation fundamental principle OF justice the
OF the bounds presented by law No other
pOwet given the General Term by the statute cited
In other II acts Court or review ana its func
ton these two capacities ought not to be coniOunded.
First-There il no absolute right 10 notice OF eght
days Of less than eight days may be prescribed
by Judge OF Court.
Second-lt not improper TO bring on the certorari
for q hearing at the Special Term at which
the order TO show made returnable.
can discover no ground upon which the order ap-
pesled IRON stand and think 1t should be reversed
All concur.