Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1897-10-12
A WRIT OF MANDATE
BOARD ACTED ACCORDING TO LAW,


Judge Hiles delivered his decision
in the case of Arthur Pratt VS. the
board of police and fire commissioners,
denying the application of Mr. Pratt
for writ of mandate requiring the
board to set aside an order heretofore
made suspending him from exercis-
ing his functions and duties as chief
Of police OF salt Lake City
Judge Hlles reviews the history Of
the case, showing that the hearing of
the charges against Mr.. Pratt was in
progress when the writ was applied
foI. Judge IIlles reviews the case
from the time of the filing of the
charges agaist Mr.. Pratt. by Henry
Il. Burton, and his suspension from
exercising the duties of his office, on
the 14th Of July last, up to the present
status of the case, showing that the
petitioner appeared before the board
on July 10th and demanded TO be tried
when all the members were in atten-
dance, at the same time Directing to
being tried by the board at all because
of the prejudice of one member, and
that the board was not partisan,
lultt u lilflll btlllE i'tlilVNidAH anu
one "a Republican. The trial was be-
gun by the board on August Goth. hut
after several days one of the mem
bers. Mr.. Kenyon, refuse to sit further
in the trial of the cause, and with
drew from further participation in the
trial The hearing was then ad-
journed until the attendance of all the
members of the board could be secured.
Mr.. Pratt then petitloned the district
court for a writ of mandate.
The court refers to the parts of the
act of 1896 relating to the question of
the suspension and removal of officers,
stating that they SHOW much mud
ding OF provisions and confusion of
language" The court quotes from
section 10 which declares that "The
board hereby created shall have the
power and 1t shall be their duty Mt
any time for good cause or when the
good of the service will be subserved
thereby. upon the concurrence of three
members thereof. tn suspend without
pay or dismiss the chief or captain OF
police" etc.
Section II provides that ANY citi-
zen may prefer and file with the board
a complaint and charges against the
chief or either department or any
officer, member, or employe thereof.
Immediately upon the filing of such
charges, or of charges preferred by
the chief of either department, the
board shall suspend officer or mem
Der complained Of, If he be not al
ready under suspenslonand II In their
Judgment the charges warrant sus-
pension, until the matter Gun he
heard and investigated"
Section II declares that "The chief
and captain of police, and the assist
ant engineer OF the fire department
each and all Of them shall be subject
safl 60.
by a vote of three members of the
board at any time"
The court says. 1.-THE suspension
here complained OF seems to hav,
been made under the provisions %
| section II. That section empower
the board to suspend IL in their judg
\ ment the charges warrant SUSPENSION
| The board seem to have exercised tn,
! Judgment and discretion thus con
ferred by the statute. in such case
| no court has ever yet undertaken l.
Interfere with or control the judgmen
| or discretion of a board, when thu
conferred by statute. 1t Is not easy L
| perceive why the Legislature hai
given the board an absolute discretion
10 suspend an officer when charges ar,
| preferred by citizen, and on tn,
| other hand a limited discretion il
| the case mentioned In sections 10 an,
| H. In cases like the one unde
| NOTICE. the board can suspend If Al
| their judgment the charges warran
| II, whilst in other cases the suspen
sion must be for cause shown. il 4
necessary to give the statute thi
Interpretation in order to give effect L
all It's provisions.
In this particular matter of suspen
sion, the statutes give the board tn
| power to determine whether II is
proper case for suspension,an accord
Ing to an unbroken current OF author
ity, the court win not in such case In
terfere with the decision of the boar
under discretion thus conferred.
Some OF the respondents ask for
! writ Of mandate to all the members q
the board, commanding them to pro
coed and try these charges agains
the petitioner TO n final decision.
Il am of the opinion that that mat
ter should be the subject of n direc
proceeding against the board for tina
purpose.
III an application were made to
court for writ of mandate to comp,
the board to proceed with the trii
of the petitioner | have no doubt
would receive serious consideration.
1.-THE application OF petitioner for
peremptory writ OF mandate is d,
Med"
Rnnk NJ Mnrnnn Glaze