Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-07-01
WAS LEGISLATED
OUT OF OFFICE.
Supreme Court Decision in Captain
Of Police Silyey's Case,
SUED THE WRONG PARTIES.
Huie OF Property Rights Decided BY
the nigh court Judge iarich
Dis-ents

Tho supreme Court delivered nn
opinion today BOO tho case of william %.
suyoy ys John a. Boyle mayos "f uE.
den and members uf the city council,
appellants. with directions to tho agc-
uul district court Honey 3d. lin'upp.
judge. Co dismiss the proceeding With
out prejudice and Co deny the writ "
mandate.
sllyey was formerly captain uf tho
ogden police. but Elt Doe out Fehru-
ary 18Th. isys Iio applied tD the dia-
trict court Tor writ Uf mandate 90
compel the city of ogden tl pay him n
salary nt the rate uf $50 u month,
from the date uf bio discharge t1 May
10Th. 1895
sltey was appointed captain under
the hct relating iu Police ana htg g.-
pnrtmcutH. approved ln March, lsll ie
was given biz walking papers without
being even told the why's aud where.
f0rca iIo claimed that charges should
have been preferred against hin unl
that be- should have been given On"
right 90 be- heard. The city NJ ogden
on the other hand took the position
that 10 had the right 10 remove the
captain by virtue OF an ufulunn" %
nboiiHhlnF the office passed January
aiat ana approved February ith. 1875
This ordinance u seems ala not Hgrrla
~ any day on which u should take
eject
ON February 7th, 1895. another ordi.
nance was passed rU.crcntinE the Of
ace OF captain. February iith 3. u,
Whitaker was Installed into tho ole
nee and continued 10 serve until Stay
10Th, when he. too. was removed BY
virtue of the ordinance. expressly abol-
irhlng the office. passed May End In
his petition for writ ~ mandate
Silvty claimed tho omulumentH ~ the
ONCE from the time he was removed
20 May 10th. 1875 when the ONCE uf
captain was finally abrorated. Judge
Rolapp rendered judgment In favor OF
Silycy and ordered the writ 10 issue
Thofeupon Mayor Boyle aud city coun.
cil appealed
The question argued By council was.
Did the ordinance u January 3ist
iSls. work an abolition N the ofilco "
police. The supreme Court holds that
u dld not, at the same timo npprcciat-
ina the fact that the question goes to
the merit NJ the ease ana IT, detcrmina-
,lon likely TO prevent further litigation
between the parties,
The court finds that the real purpose
~ the council IN passing the ordinance
was not TO abolish the uniCe but 10 get
rid u incumbent 90 NJ 10 make room
for another. AN Oniter. whose. tenure
II during good behavior. or who can
only be removed Tor cause" the conrt
holds, "oannot thus b. ierislntcd out ~
ONCE" A. to the methods pursued
IN trying 20 effect the removal the
court holds. are not such na 10 coin-
mend themselves % "a cutet ~ justice.
Judge Rnlnpp. the court further finds.
properly held that silvcy was entitled
20 the salary u the ONCE ~ 10 May
10Th. lsas. Rt which time the ofiico was
abolished.
II IL then pointed out that allvcy
committed fatal error In bringing
suit against the mayor and council to
compel an appropriation for tho pur.
pose OF paying his claim, The fault ana
not lie with the mayor ana council the
court holds, but with some other officer
~ the municipality, presumably tho
city auditor Under the ruling of the
court Silyry may now present hts
claim 20 the auditor and ret his salary.
The opinion ~ concurrcd in By jus
tice Miner and Justice nnHkln.