The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-01-06
THE COURT WILL DECIDE
WHETHER SAFETY BOARD HAD
POWER TO DISCHARGE MEN.
Attorneys File q Suit In the Superior
Court-AvermentsS Set Out in
the Complaint.

The threatened suit of discharged patrol
men against the Board of Public Safety
was filed in the Superior Court yesterday
afternoon by Duncan. Smith & Hornbrook.
The suit Is in the form of mandatory pro-
ceedings. Ia which the court is asked to re-
quire the defendant to reinstate the plain
tiffs. Those who appear plaintiffs are
Jacob ID. Kurtz, Daniel A. Butcher, Harry
G. Barbee. Asbury d. Rinker. Ira Leet, FL
mer Stoddard. Frederick Gunsolus, Ter
renee Moore. VIM. l.. Cox, Thomas l..
Stout and John f. Kurtz.
1t is averred in the complaint THAT the
records of said Board OF Public Safety
were made to show that such dismissal
was on account Of the inefficiency OF such
REALTORS as police officers. and the notice of
dismissal averred that such dismissal was
for inefficiency. And the State of Indiana,
on the relation aforesaid, AYERS that each
of said REALTORS claim that they were faith
full and efficient officers, 'cheerfully per-
forming all their duties as such and ODE
dent to all the orders of their superior
officers. and they further claim that their
dismissal was not in truth and i'm fact upon
account of their inefficiency as officers.
ineficiency. neglect of duty or violation of
the rules of the Board of Public Safety of
the city of Indianapolis or neglect or oIs-
obedience of orders, or incapacity, or alb
sence without leave, or conduct injurious
TO the public peace or welfare, or immoral
conduct, or conduct unbecoming an officer
or other breach of discipline could have
been rightfully sustained against them or
either of them upon a hearing had thereon.
a N a 70 an hA nln nfn nc0td
AYERS the fact to be that no charges were
presented to said board against said rela-
tors or any of them, nor was any notice
given TO said REALTORS or any of them, that
any complaint or charges of any character
or nature had been made against them, or
that any dissatisfaction existed as to their
conduct, or that any question had been
raised as to their efficiency as officers. nor
did said realtors have any knowledge from
any source. either directly or indirectly,
that any complaint of any character or ma
ture whatever against them as officers, or
as to their conduct or efficiency. had been
presented to said board, or that it was in
contemplation, or expected that any COM
plant would be presented to such board;
that said REALTORS nor any of them were
given no opportunity to be heard or to dis
prove any charge or complaint against
them as to their conduct or efficiency as
such officers prior to such dismissal. And
the State of Indiana, on the relation afore-
salu, futher AYERS that thereafter and be-
fore the bringing of this suit, to wit, on the
Sd day OF January, 1900, said REALTORS ap-
peared before said Board of Public Safety
by their counsel and demanded that said
Board OF Public Safety should reconsider
its action in Diminishing them and each of
them from said police force and reinstate
them as police officers upon the police force
of the city of indianapolis, and thereupon
said Board Of Public Safety refused to re-
consider their said action in dismissing
them from such police force and refuses to
reinstate them as officers and members of
such police force"
The complaint shows that the men who
bring the suit had when dismissed served
in the city police department the following
respective periods of time: Jacob D. Kurtz,
from JAN 81, 1894; Daniel A. Butcher. since
Aug. Is, 1896; Harry c. Barbee. since April
l. 1897; Asbury ID. Rinker, since March 10,
1894: Ira Leet, since March IS. 1895; Elmer
Stoddard, since April /, 1897; Frederick
Gunsolus, since Feb 1. 1895; Terrence
Moore, since April 10, 1895; VIM. L. Cox,
since April 1, 1891; Thomas L. Stout since
April IA, 1893; John F. Kurtz, since July IL,
1887.
Judge Carter, of Room 3, issued an al
tentative writ Of mandate against the de-
PENDANT, which is made returnable on Jan.
10. The city attorney will probably file
demurrer to the complaint. Deputy City
Attorney Bell says the boards defense will
be based on the contention that IL has
right to discharge men whom it deems I'M
fit for service in the departments where
they are employed.