Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1897-02-06
PRATT KNOCKED OUT
Judge Cherry Denies The Ez. Chiefs
Petition for a Writ Of Mandate.
FULL TEXT OF TUE DECISION.
Says the Board Could Remove Without
Good Cause--0lher Court
Matters,

Judge Cherry gave his decision In
the Pratt msndamus proceedings case
this afternoon In which he denies
Pratt's petition.
The decision is in substance as fol-
lows:
"This is an action to obtain per.
ON ptory writ and mandate against
the defendants 10 compel them to re-
store the plaintiff. Arthur Pratt, to the
position OF CHIEF OF police OF Salt
Lake City, Utah, from which
position he alleges he was
wrongfully dismissed by said de-
fondants Oh or about the It'll OF
December, 1895. The alleged wrong
ful dismissal is claimed to consist Ia
the fact that plaintiff was Arbitrarily
and without cause dismissed from said
office, and that no charges wbre ever
made or filed; that no notice wac
given OF n hearing whereby plaintih
would have an opportunity to appear
and defend himself.
"The defendants' answered and also
demurred to the complaint, but the
demurrer was not pressed, but was by
agreement overruled, pro iofma, anu
uIOh INV
evidence before the court.
sThe evidences Of the plaintiff in
brief was 10 tho effect that the peti.
tioner, Arthur Pratt, was appointed on
or about December 81, 1884, to
the Office Of chief OF police
by the commissioners, to hold said
tfiice during good behavior. The evil
dence OF the defendants was to the
effect that the present commissioners
thought they had safli nlent reasonu to
remove the plaintiff.
"Ae this court views the questio
the whole ihsue depends upon tue con.
struction TO be given the law OF 1896.
"The plaintiff WAS appointed to the
cfilce in question under ana 10y Virtue
oil the law as II existed In 1894 Be-
lore his removal the law Of 1894 was
repealed and the law of 1895 enacted
In lieu thereof. The law OF
1894 expressly provided that the in
cumbent OF the Office OF chief
of police could not be dis.
missed or removed except ior
cause upon written charges anu hear
ing before the cOmuiiss onerH. The
law OF 1896 expressly repeats the act
OF 1894, and 1t ~ the construction OF the
latter act that must ut least determine
the question raised here. Ii 10 evil.
deot mat the Legislature intended to
make important changes In the matter
OF removals In certain oflicee, among
which was tue office OF cniei OF
police. Section 20, act OF 1894, is not
ra-enacted In the law OF 1896, but the
muds OF removal 10 radically changed,
and by the language USED in section
10, page 1913, laws OF Utah, 1885, II
would seem that the law gave uis.
cretionary power to the said board
OF commissioners 10 either dismiss
or suspend for good cause, or, II
the good of the service wOuiu be- sun.
served thereby. That latter phrase
is nowhere found In the law OF 1894,
or any language OF similar import,
ard IL would seem that the legislative
intendment was to confer upon the
said board the power to remove or
Suspend at pleasure, or at Its discretion
anu without good cause. This con-
sltuction would seem evident from
the distinctive character OF the
phraeo above referred 10. II this 10
the correct construction Of the law ap.
plicable to this case, t el follows