New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-02-01
SALARIES OF PATROLMEN.

SALAhlEO VI IA
DECIsION AGAINST THE POLICE BOARD.
THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDES THAT SALARIES
CANNOT BE WITHHELD ON ACCOUNT OF BIN
NESS.
fey TELEGRAPH TO THE rRIBUSE.l
Albany. Jan. 31.-The Court of Appeals has
handed down decision suit OF John Ryan against
the Police Commissioners Of New-York CITY, Ryan, VINO
waa n patrolman while sick deprived Of first hali
and then threequarters Of his salary by the Police Com
issioners The total sum deducted amounted to over
$1,000. ,.-.-,.
The Board Of Police maintained that they had the sh'
by law to axe this deduction owing TO RyahS no' P
forming service as patrolman n
RYAN sued stephen b. French, the treasurer vi ' 10
Police Department. for the amount deducted lie wiz
now recover It, the Court Of Appeals deciaihs III w
favor The Court holds that the Board OF Ponce n,u ~
authority by law to withhold from Ryan tne go y, ~
him. They state that although lucapaoie OF "1,' ~
he was denied a pension by the Board OIL ion0e,
and against his will was fe'
IN of,ce without advantage to the puone'
The Court is Of the opinion that the counso' oi sn
respondent lost nothing by omittng tue p'i''
nm in the reargument upon the first OCCASION ""u oo"
tinues in part as follows: ,... III.
This result reached by in no respect VIII
the of tine respondent to control by rules ana
regulations the conduct and ia'ni9 and ia an
pcabie only to case wAere sea ase or injuries
member member is enforced executing the duties
his office such is this as 1t stands on inc cohGSs
statute allows the retirement OF policeman "hdsabled
while in actual performance OF duty and the
dnnn9 the ordinary discharge ponce duty in contra
distinction apparently. from such injury or sickness
caused by Unusual exposure or exeitiOn wnIe III tne
discourage of such dufy The condition goes beyond tne
statute We must adhere TO tae a5d General
Terms be reversed and the witt OF mandahus !"
lowed.
The Judges state support of tins opinion that 1t was
commended by the Police Departments lawyers that
section AZ OF the Act OF 1873 repealed by chapter
3s9 Of the laws Of S7s ana that sections and OF that
act prescribe the only power to pension or retire po
lice officer The Judge who writes the opinion says in
respect to this assertions
the G PROVISIONS Of section AZ Of Of 1873 By
fiou AZ a patrolman, If disabled while In me actua
performance OF duty" be retired from office, but
only at mis- own request notice and upon cond
lions expressed That section special case Is tnere
provided for and perceive nothing IN the general Ian
saage of the Act of ISIS Which aS Is asa
cSanter sso of the laws of 1873 passed in 1892
vdes in substance that the BOARD Oh doee aS NJ a
force thereupon grant pensions among Others
IN. performance duty and by of the per
formance OF such duty, shall nave become permanently
disabled so as TO be untitled to perform police duty
We see no reason therefore to onange the con-
struction heretofore given to section AZ supra. ,.
was neither retired from office nor granted pension
under either act. Upon a former argument the TO
spondent conceded that the salary wac Py
staIute tuat having performed no service ourng tne
period for which the salary was claimed ne hau 10
right thereto. Tue respondents contention now Is
that the REALTORS conversation Inc nsa.nS ot mo title
10 office, but pay for service performed
That patrolman receives salary" and not merely
"pay for service performed" then argued at great
length The entire body of laws referring to the Police
Department OF New-YOrk is gone over TO prove this
noint The argument then continues follows:
From theeA sta
once admitted to the police force takes his position In
an oice to held him so long as he performs the
duties laid upon aud enjoy Its salary until by some
form of law he is removed. Both parties nave
urged in support OF their respective claims the authority
of ussge II the practice OF the Commissioners
to make deductions from salaries of similar character
10 those cOmpained0 OF has prevailed 1t has not been
supported by enactment of the Legislature
or Nv iudcia decision general 1t may have
tion law d impair plain right gwen by statute
eau find warrant or authority by which we can limit
the compensation OF pstronan TO the sum earned by
actual service" or consrue statute giving him an
should construe the provision in the Act Of
1897 The very plain plain and great difference col, !.
cited counsel for the respondent as recognizing
the practice referred TO relate to the police fund and its
augmen laou from various sources, out railing snort OF
the case IL hand
The conclusions OF the Court are as follows:
Frst-The enactment to which have already referred
proy1ding THAT policemen absent from duty through
dsease injuries contracted in public service shall re-
ceiye full has not been In terms repealed by any
statute which have been referred or which have
Second-BuI if we look at the provisions OF the
cited he same result follows: we nowhere find an in
ienton deprive disabled officer OF the immunity
thus given or legislative sanction recognition Of the
nrocess NV nch the relat0r deprived OF his pay
during sickness and while kept IN the police force