Waterbury evening Democrat., 1903-06-26
Attorneys o'Neill and Hunt
 Locked Horns To-Day.
JUDGE THAYER TOOK PAPERS

The Case Is the One Concerning Ben jamin Sedgwick's Charges Against
 Officer Mansfeld-The Domestic Pie l Baking Co.'S Affairs Had Another
 Airing Several Divorce Gases
 Heard.
 The most important matter on tne
 short calendar before Judge Thayer in l the superior court to-day was the city 1 demurrer to Benjamin Sedgwick's ap-
 peal from the action of the board of I public safety in the case of Special Policeman Michael Blansfeld The city was represented by Attorneys l O'Neill, Kellogg and Guilfoile, and MT Sedgwick by Judge Peasley and Attor-
 ney Hunt The substance of the de I murrer was that the board of public
 safety had sole power in the matter in question and that Sedgwick did not state whether or not he is a taxpayer.
 MT O'Neill quoted the charter, which says that the board of safety shall have sole power in the matter of ap- pointment and removal of officers and members of the police department; that it shall and has the power to define the duties of said officers and members of l the police department, and shall also I prescribe hatepunishment shall be l imposed in cases of proven dereliction l in duty
 The basis on which the appeal Is .I taken is contained in section which ! MT O'Neill said pertains to matters of liens, contracts, etc. Quoting from this
 section, Mir O'Neill read: "Any person I feeling aggrieved by any act of the l board of aldermen or any department, may take an appeal etc The differ
 ence of opinion on the powers of the
 charter is centered on the words sor
 any department" Counsel for MT
 Sedgwick claims the words "any de I partment'' means that an appeal may I be taken from the action of any board; I that all the boards are departments of the city government, or departments \ of the board of aldermen, which is the I governing board of the city.
 ! Arguing the matter, Mir O'Neill said: Are things so constituted within the I meaning of the charter that if he, as a
 taxpayer, resident or voter, petitioned
 the board of safety to appoint his l friend, James Brown, a policeman, and l if the board declines to appoint him, \ can he take an appeal from the board s decision in refusing to make the ap- I pointment? The fact is that MT Sedg- l wick was but minor party In this matter. He had no right to feel az grieyed. If anybody had the right to
 feel aggriYed 1t was the city, as repre-
 scented by either the city or the prose cutting attorneys.
 .'But allowing that Mir sedgwick had +<, +eif,r Fnq ! gotten that he has stated no reasons l for so appealing. He merely says that
 the board of safety, for party or politi-
 cal reasons, arbitrarily decided the .po- l 1iceman was not guilty of the acts all
 leged by Sedgwick.'
 In support of the claims in the de I nft1rrer that the court had no power to act in the case, MT O'Neill claimed the 1 question before the court was merely I administrative and that the court has
 power only to deal with judicial mat l ters. It was simply difference of opinion as to-whether or not Mansfield | did his duty. Some people held he
 should have arrested everybody in
 sight; some held that he should have 1 used his Judgment, and though he may 1 have erred in his judgment it does not l follow that he erred in his duty It I was a matter for the board of public
 safety to say whether or not he was 1 guilty of not performing his duty, as claimed by MT Sedgwick. and the board l decided he was not guilty. The char I ter provides that it shall be the duty of the board of safety to decide in such matters not the duty of those who l bring the charges. The vote of the
 board on the charges was three to two 1 for acquitta1 on all of them except four,
 and four to one on all of them except
 one.
 l Attorney Hunt dn reply said the l charges in question arose out or rhe 1 strike and that Sedgwick was one of I others who decided to attempt to place
 the responsibility. He clamed the l question was decided without the evi- I dence and that it was decided arbl- trarily. He then took the question as to whether or not Sedgwdck has the right of appeal
 l Sections 1O2 and 104 of the charter, l relate to the board of safety, giving 1t I certain powers, and to him 1t was ouastion If those sections limited the mower of the board. There are times, ] Mr Hunt said, when municipal boards l are made up of ignorant parties and 1t l was only right that the court should l have supervision of the conduct of mu- l nicipal boards.
 I MT Hunt claimed that section 116 of the charter granted the right of appeal l and that sections 102 and 1O4 did noN
 confine the board of safety to the pro I visions contained in them He admit l led that section 102 gave the board l the sole right to appoint and remove. I Tn reply to the court he admitted rhere is nothing in the charter relat- 1 ing to citizens bringing charges or complaints against members of the pc
 lice department, but there is such a provision in the city ordinances and it l was under that the charges were
 brought and the appeal taken. MT O'Neill held that Sedgwick
 should have pecuniaTy interest in the
 matter MT Hunt claimed that not
 withstanding that he had no complaint
 of a financial character he still had l the right of appeal. The charter pro vides that .'all persons who shall feel
 aggrieved x * may appeal.' Nothing ai6 ir iii ahoft t;axDpvarS Tn that