The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1891-07-08
BOAsD or foIlcE COMMISSIONERS
ToFFrc1AL PRocEEpIxes1

roFFIcIAL PRocEEDISes1
Adjourned meeting Of the Board Of Po-
lies Commissioners held In First District
Court room, Tuesday, July 2, 1891.
Present-Ali the members.
Minutes Of last meeting approved -
printed
CONCENTRATIONS AND PETITIONS
Communications, etc, we're received
and disposed Of as follows:-
Communication from Corporation
Counsel, Hon. William D. Edwards, en-.
ciosing opinfsn of Supreme Court, or
dered spread in full on minutes.
NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT.
June Term. 1891.
The State, Grifith NJ. Cooper, vs.. the
Mayor and Council Of Jersey CITY. Eyia~
bus.
/. In the summary proceedings OF the
Board OF Police Commissioners dis
missed from service q patrolman, IL must
appear that they found him guilty. bat
no formal record Of conviction need be
kept.
z. . In this case a blank used By
the Board, on which the name Of the ac-
cused. his plea. the finding OF the Board
and the sentence were entered, n the
paper then handed TO the Clerk for fling.
Is a sufficient record to support the con-
viction-
Argued at February term. 1891. before
Justices Depue, Van Syckel and Scudder-
Charles II. voorhees,, Esq, for plaintiff;
William Edwards tor defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered
by Van syckei, ). The prosecutor was a
City from November. 1856. 20 April,
1890, when he was tried by
the Board OF Possos Commissioner
on q charge of entering a greenhouse and
stealing flowers and dismissed from y
service. This suit Is prosecuted 10 set
- 49, r.r~1 -.
Joseph Duke of the Board or Fire Conn
missloners OF jersey City. decided at the
November Term, 1890, OF this court, but
not reported. is relied upon By the relator
TO establish his Case.
In that case the memorandum fled BY
this court in disposing Of the case IL as
follows
1.-THE prosecutor was foreman Of Engine
Company No. ain the Fire Departments
OF Jersey City. He was removed from
his position and dismissed from the De-
partment November %. 1859. The charge
preferred against him was Of disorderlT
conduct at a fire at Station 81 on the
morning OF October q, 1889.
The charge was in writing signed By
the Chief Engineer of the Fire Depart
ment. A CODY was served upon the prose-
cutor and ne had notice OF q hearing be-
fore the Board of Fire Commissioners.
He appeared at the hearing and witnesses
O2 " WIZ 1~&9 o@N--~
The act of March "a, 1855. authorizes the
dismissal of members OF the Fire DEPART
ment for misconduct.
DisorderIs conduct at a fire is miscon-
duct within the meaning of the act.
The prosecutor had a hearing on notice.
A reasonable and q fair hearing and inyes-
tigation without formality in the proceed
ure is all tnat is required. This
viii not retry or review a case. It
is sufficient If there is q legal
and substantial basis for removal. on
which the Commissioners acted within
their authority.
utes show only what the President an
nounced as the decision Of the Board IN
the case of Joseph Duke and Thomas
Lanahan. charged with dfsorderly con-
duct, hat their names be dropped from
the rolls.
The Commissioners were not required
60 prepare any formal record of conric-
ton, but it was necessary in order 70
validate the dismissed that they should
ind the prosecutor guilty Of the charge
imputed TO him. and that it should 50
appear on the minutes Of their proceed-
ings.
Judgment of dismissal could not Be-
passed until conviction In a cass ike
this, charging misconduct, which modi-
fed forfeiture of Office. it must allirma-
lively appear that IA party charged was
found gailty.
Such findings viii not be implied in
order TO sustain a Judgment Of dismiss al
The proceedings below SO far as they
affect Joseph Duke the prosecutor are set
aside.
In the Duke case there was an entire
absence OF evidence TO show that the pros
ecutor was declared TO be guilty: all thar
appeared was the sentence In the case
before us It is clearly distinguishes. It
anuaare Inv the aEfdaUea of the Clark of
the Board, that after the members OF the
Board had heard the case. they retired
for elaboration and on returning found
Cooper gulEty OF the charge and spccifica-
ton ana sentenced him 10 be dismissed
from the service.
This witness ~testifies that It wa his
Continued On Second pace.
TIRE COMMISSIONERS NAMED IN AND Au-
Il fhorized 70 act under the acf entitled An act
% incorporate the New YORK and Sew Jersey