The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-01-28
THE SPECIALS ARE TO STAY
JUDGE RoLAPP sUsTAINs Ac-
TON OF CITY COUNCIL
Council Had Right to Abolish
Offices of Patrolmen and Has Done
So According to Law.

Judge Rolapp yesterday handed down
his decision N the case of Fred Meisner
VS.. Mayor Boyle Ogden City ct aI.,
and TO some extent clears UP the po
lice muddle of Ogden. The statement
OF the case was as follows:
1T appears from the evidence in the
case that in February, 1898, the city
council discharged the Telator and two
other policemen, and appointed three
other persons in their places, which LAT
ter persons performed the duties OF po-
liceInen from Feb. Is, 1898, to April s,
1888, when by a decision of the su-
prene court Of this state in another
case, the rights Of the petitioner and
the other discharged policemen to. be
reinState1 was declared as absolute.
The policemen being reinstated, the
city council thereafter, on May 10, 1898,
passed another ordinance, reducing the
police force to three policemen, and the
relatOr and the same policemen who
were discharged in February We're
again discharged. On May 81, 1898, the
mayor appointed a person to act as
special policeman, and on June s. $685.
the mayor appointed two additional
persons to act as special policemen
Such actions Of the mayor We're in pur-
suancc of resolutions duly passed by
the city council, but in neither instance
were any Of the discharged patrolmen
appointed as such special police. and
such special officers have ever since
performed all the duties Of patTolmen,
and are receiving substantially the
same salaries as other p2trolmen.
The decision then states the conten-
tious of the different parties TO the
suit, reviews the evidence and quotes
the statutes affecting the case. The
conclusion is as follows:
4 come to the conclusion, therefore,
that the city council can, by ordi-
nance, legally abolish the office of any
number OF patrolmen, and that in this
case it has been done: that the method
of having the chief of police determine |
which members of the force shall be
discharges by reason of such aboli- !
ton OF offices is absolutely proper, and |
that the tenure of the patrolmen hold /
ing Office on JAM 1, 1898, was during |
good behavior, or until their office |
should be abolished, and that the man
ner of discharge as d result of a com I
petitive examination, in case of the alb |
clifton of any number of the Offices of I
patrolmen, is no part of their tenure Of /
office. 1 am also of the opinion that |
the city council had a right to decrease !
the salary of any policeman in jan I
uary, 1893, so long as such decrease did (
not in effect become a removal, by |
making the salary merely nominal. 1 |
am further of the opinion that the Off
GERS We're entitled 20 the time during |
the time they were Illegally suspended |
from office, and that is so notwithStand-
ing they may have earned money in |
other vocations during such suspen-
sions, so long as the evidence shows,
as it does in this case, that the sus-
pended officer was at all times ready to
perform all the duties of his Office.
A writ may issue in this case, COM
polling the defendants to appropriate
and pay to the relatOr the sum of
S239.14, being $119.57 for himself and
S119.57 for his assignor, D. o. Sullivan.
Costs to be taxed against the defend
ants.
The decision is in favor of Officers
Farr, Shaw and Cooney as against
Meisner, Burton and Sullivan. Judge
Laginnis said last night that he would
appeal the case.