The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-12-09
NOW Mr. DOCKERY
IS NOT WILLING
Objects to an Investiga-
ton Of the Alleged
Blackmail.
Attorney Clunie Presents a
Demurrer for the Milk
Inspector.
Says the Only Relief in a Charge OF
This Kind Is an Appeal to
the Board of Health.

Milk Inspector James P. Dockery APP
peared in Jude Hunts court wearing a
blue flannel shirt with tall collar like
that OF fashionable woman's cloak.
1t was expected that Mr.. Dockery
would at once demand full investigation
OF the charges made by Rutland d Zim-
norman that Mr.. Dockery and Market In
spector Bob Davis had attempted to levy
blackmaii, but he permitted his attorney,
A. j. Clunie, to file demurrer to the COM
plant.
The specific accusation is that several
weeks ago Dockery and Davis approached
member of the rirm of Rutland & Zm-
norman, who are engaged IN the dairying
business, and offered for 5000 to have a
pretended examination of their cows made
with the purpose OF procuring fraudulent
certificate that said cows are healthy. Be-
cause of this alleged attem pit to levy black
mail the accuSers assert that Dockery Is
unfit 10 hold the office of Milk Inspector,
and application was accordingly made to
have him ousted from office. An amend
ment to the original case was also offered,
giving as furtner reason Tor removing
him that his incorporate habits unit him
for the performance of his duties.
Mr.. Clunie began his opposition to the
complaint by serving a copy of his demur-
rer ON Attorney M. M. Estee, who repre-
scented the complaining witness. The
demurrer stated that the proceedings
against DockerJ were not legal, the princi-
pal point being that the complaint was
framed under section III OF the Penal
Code, which section does not say any thing
about ousting a man from office for al
legged blackmail.
The section was read, and it was pointed
out that it says proceedings to deprive a
man of mis- Office may be had for collecting
illegal fees or for neglect of duty, but for
no other reasons.
There is no allegation in the com plant,
Mr.. Clunie said, to show that Dockery had
collected any illegal fees or that he had
neglected his duties. The charge is simply
blackmail, and that ought to be tried IN
another way.
In addition to this point Mr.. Clunie
read from the statutes and the code to
establish his contention that Dockery is
not and never has been a public officer
within the meaning of the law; that he is
really mere employee OF the Board of
Health, with no fixed term or tenure, and
holds his place entirely at the pleasure of
that board. This being the case, Mr..
Clunie argued that application for Dock
ery's dismissal must be made only to the
guilty of criminal acts he could be Indict-
ed by the Grand Jury.
Supreme Court d cisions in the cases OF
Park Commissioner Stowe and Assessor
Slebe were cited to establish this view OF
the case, and Mr.. CIunie said that the
highest tribunal of the State had given an
Interpretation of the intention of the Leg
islature, and he thought it was never the
intention of the Legislature to have an
EN- ploye of a county officer or a public
board dragged into court every time there
was dispute with any citizen or outside
party. Ii such rule as that were al
lowed any police officer on the force might
be called into court to answer charges of
misconduct. The Supreme Court of New
York decided that the Police Commission
ers were the proper persons to take cog
nizance of all such affairs relating to the
employees of the Police Department-that
the courts had no jurisdiction of such
matters.
Touching the allegation of drunkenness
in Office, Mr.. Clunie demurred 10 that
charge on the ground that the statute OF
$780, which appears in behring's Penal
code under section ", removes the ques-
ton of drunkenness from the purview of
section 772 of the Penal Code. Besides, the
statute of 1880 relates only to City and
County officers. and Dockery being merely
an empioye of the Board of Health, and
not pubic officer in the contemplation
of the law, cannot be proceeded against
in this way.
A spirited discussion took place between
the lawyers with regard to which side was
asking for delay, and it was finally con-
coded that both parties to tho suit were
willing to proceed as soon as convenient.
Mr.. Estee informed the court that he
desired few days to examine the authori-
ties presented by Mr.. Clunie. and the case
was continued until next Monday after
noon al clock.