The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-01-07
AFFAIRS OF THE CITY
Judge Jacobs Gives an Opinion
on Captain Kent's Claim.
REPORT ON CITY WATER SUPPLY.
special Meeting of the House OF Dele.
gates Called-Stone Qualities ~
Police Commissioner.

Mayor Hall has issued q call for q special
meeting of the house of delegates on Friday
night The board of aldermen will also meet
.hat night, and il is probable that among other
business there will be submitted an opinion by
Judge Jacobs on the claim OF Captain Kent.
The opinion is as follows:
The papers aud proceedings as well as the
ss'ateinent OF the account Of Captain A. N. Kent,
heretofore member of the police force OF the
cry Oh seattle. has been presented TO me and my
opinion solicited in regard to this matter.
Frsl-Ihis question presents itself to me
under two aspects: l. Did the chief of police
90 right and act legally in dropping from the
ponce roster the name of Captain A. NJ. Kent?
am OF the opinion that the chief of police, in
the exercise OF the powers conferred upon him
ana Ia the discharge OF the important and deli
cate duties required OF him under the ordin-
ances OF the city and the rules of the police de-
partment, did exactly what his duty required
MN TO do in dropping the name of Captain A.
NJ Kent from the police roster and in the ap-
Rules as and IS clearly require that any mem
Der of the police force who shall be absent from
DUTY without leave for the term of five days,
snail, at the expiration of said five days, cease
70 De member OF the police force; rule 46,
however, provides that in case OF sickness of .
member OF the police force, when properly set
apart oy the city physician, that the results
THESE rules, OF which Ar. Kent, a member of
the police force, is presumed to have full notice
and knowledge. it was his duty, if disabled by
notify the chief of police by certificate of the
city physician, that he was sick and unable 10
perform his duty. and such notice must be filed
AZ police headquarters within five days after
such disability or sickness commenced
This is a reasonable and necessary require
ment. 1t would not do for the chief of police
II any, OF the disability by sickness of any of
his force. The law, as well as the rules OF the
ponce department require certain kind of
testimony in such cases. and that with the GER
o pAysiclAQ
created by sickness.
Ii was the imperative duty of Mr.. Kent, so far
as the dismissal was concerned, if he desired to
prevent ii, 10 have such certificate on file at
polics headquarters.
The want OF it not only justified but made it
the imperative duty of the chief of police to
crop him from the roster. These rules are made
In the interest of economy, and their enforce
ment by the chief of police is a matter of the
first importance TO the city Without such en-
forcement II Will often happen that two or more
persons are drawing salaries for one and the same
duty, as il claimed in this case, and as has been
Claimed in several other cases which have come
under my observation. Under this phase of the
case, then, so far as Chief Rogers / concerned,
can but say that in the dismissal of Captain
Kent he was acting in the absence of any legal
evidence OF the disability by sickness of Mr.. A.
NJ Kent, in the strict and intelligent discharge
OF his duties in that regard; but
secondly-Captain Kent claims that he applied
10 the city physician Immediately at the COM
mencement OF his disability for d certificates:
that said physician examined him and promised
10 give him such a certificate, but said city
physician never filed any such certificate
at the headquarters OF the police depart.
ment, until the 3lst of May, A. D. 1891, long
alter the expiration of the five days specified in
the rules. In the mean time substitute had
been appointed for A. NJ. Kent, and said substi-
tute Was In the active discharge OF his duties az
such, and drawing his salary from the city.
The chief of police, in the month of May, the
exact date of which does not appear, duly re-
ported his action in thai matter 10 the board of
police commissioners and his action was duly
approved by said board
Now as to whether Captain A. NJ. Kent has a
Claim in equity, worthy OF your consideration
Is not question Tor me to decide.
His claim is based on the fact that
he was actually siek-had the city
physician examine him, ana said city physician
promised 10 give him a certificate of disability
arising from such sickness, but did not give
such certificate before May 81, 1891, while the
disability occurred on May r. over half month
prior to that time. and no legal evidence OF the
fact was ever sent to the police department
commencement of his disability, to-wit, for
twelve days: he claims for the remainder OF the
month of May and up to the 18th day of tho
month of June, when, as l understand it, he, by
order of the police commissioners, was dis
missed from the force.
II il was proper for me TO express an opinion,
should say that Captain Kent has a claim that
appeals to the equity of the city council up to
the LIST of June, but that his claim after that
time has neither legal nor an equitable foun-
dation. This, however, is q question for you
and not for me. The claim for $50, for money
expended by Captain Kent, from the facts before
me, in my judgment is a legal aud Just claim.
Yours respectfully, ORANGE JACOBS,
Corporation Counsel