New-York tribune., 1884-03-22
THE REMOVAL OF POLICEMEN.
DECISION By JUSTICE DAVIS IN THE CASE OF
FITZPATRICK

DECISION BY JUSTICE DAVIS IN THE CASE OF
FITZPATRICK.
The Police Commissioners yesterday received
n COPY OF decision OF the Supreme Court, General
Term in the case OF exPoliceman Daniel j. Fitzpatrick
who instituted suit for reinstatement on the ground that
his dismissal was unlawful. He dismissed on
charge Of stealing cigars from No. 16 Dutchst on April
"A 1884 His counsel carried the case the Supreme
Court ON the ground that the charge imported Grim
inal offence of either burglary larceny which the Com
,ntssoners mad no Jurisdiction TO try" As precedent
the case has regarded the most important since
the Ryan case. BY the decision, which is written
byETustice Davis the remoVOl Hom ONCE Is rearnieu
Justice Davis says
Tst no true thar policeman guilty Of felony cannot be
removed by the board TILL after his conviction and sen
vention then some asute lawyer will insist that elon
cannot be removed at all for crime, because the same
tee tried or punished for the same offence The answer
viii be conviction of feon forfeits al public once
bur not so OF misdcmeanors, and Wnere the
convict has paid the penalty Impose
the court Th should hs o not e bm s FOR
trial and another punishment Let US consider the enec
S tle me Rnsrd Of Police which requires conviction by
court OF justice before removal or any otner punishment
policeman when arraigned before the Board In sucn
case NAV always the offence: II am charged
with crtme you must arrest your proceedings tn am
convicted court; and then II the Board venture TO
proceed writ OF prohibition must issue from the court
for want OF jurisdiction In the board The policeman
never brought TO trial In court but that makes no differ
ence with the OF jurisdiction OF the board since
conviction court is condition precedent; and SO the
police force may grow time into body OF accomplished
Criminals whom the Commissioners cannot remove nor
suspend nor withhold their pay reprimand, be-
eause the Overcr0wded datory courts do not bring
| them to trial and conviction.
| JUDGE VAN BRUNT FACES MANY LAWYERS.
| There was a strong array OF legal talent
about Justice Van Brunt yesterday in the Special Term
of the Supreme Cours The occasion was hearing on
the motion Ash Green from the receyershI
of tho North River Construction Company or 20 appoint
an associate receiver with him. The application wa
made by the Attorney General In the suit of Charles
WoershoGer who was represented by John E. Parson'
and Charles b. Alexander At the centre OF the tabl'
facing Justice Van Brunt sat William W. Evarts and
his side Charles f. Macsan, the representatives OF Re
| ceiver Green Howard Mansfield appeared for the com
pany For the moving parties the counsel were Ex
Judge George f. Comstock. whose erect, commanding
person was placed next 10 Mr.. Eyarts, II. N Bangs,
| t. stetson n w. Paige and NJ A. Knapp who wer'
! grouped around Mr. Comstock, and Attorney Genera
O'Brlen Who represented the state. Behind MT Com
stock was BENJAMIN III. bristow ana cehind him sat j
/. Ill., both representing creditors OF the company
Cansoek addressed the Court In behalf or creditor
| representing over Sl,0OoOOo. The hearing went d
| until nearly y. m
HOW AN AUDITOR GOT HIS KNOWLEDGE.
John Dougherty, auditor of the Denver ant
Rio GraDde Railway. before Examiner 5. II. ohphaut i
the office Of Blatchiord, Seward, Grlswold Da Cost
yesterday continued his testimony 10 the suit OF W.
Dinsnore against the Philadelphia ard Reading TO -
aside the lease OF the Jersey Central He admitted tia