The St. Louis Republic., 1903-07-01
DECISION AGAINST
ST. LOUIS POLICEMEN.
Supreme Court Refuses to Allow
Back Salaries to Officers
Who Sued.
0VERRULES EVERY CONTENTION
Judge CAN'T Holds That Officers
in Missouri Who Hold Over
May BE Discharged at
Any Time.

|
| prpr-p, ,,. e,,r,-,,
| J,frerson f.it,, Mo 1r,o soTbo o.
| ,,o,,, COW. -,,,, ,,o,i,o, ,,,I,,s, ,ho
| eighty Ct Inri., ,,nItcc,n.n who sued tho
| Board Of Police Commissioners for salaries.
Judrc Co,,+ ,,,rotc ttc oniriop In which he
! Ie e,,n,or,o1 la, tho oo,,r, 4, h,rc ,rb. do.
cjsjon iryo,y.d S15on0o
The policemen were Doomed from the nav
roll In 1885 and tlev then brought suit I'm
| the form of a mandamus To compel the
board tn nav them their salaries for four
vcars Tho mon r,rto,dod ,b,+ , noI;co-
man was arnointed for g, torn, of four vcars
and could not be removed except for cause
and by trial At the expiration of their
four ycars' service the men held that I'M
,or A., ~, -, 80. -, -,
WI thc Ia" tii's "ete eh'i'ieu 10 anu sh'"iu
receive preference in the matter of new
appointments
Judf.a CAN'T holds that ,r ,,i.so,,r, an
's' '' MINUS INA. III -"''H'u'i an
officer who serves after his term expires is
,y arr,ro, a., n",uo,sr vel u,s.i III. successor .,.o
In the lower court several of the officers
which were appealed TO the supreme Court
were reversed while those who were de-
cided against in. the lower court had their
cases affirmed the decision in every case
thus going against the officers There were
twenty-onc test cases brought up to the
Supreme Court
The only one of the officers on the st.
Louis Police force who sued Commissioner
Hawss l5 and got juasment in the supreme
secured ssn verdict in the lower court for
| Court today. Geiselmann had been a turn.
key and was later appointed patroman
when dropped from the rolls. and the court
held that he should have been given a four
year term.
In the reconsignment cases where thrice,
different if railroads were % nroceaSag % ara,ns, 'rr
by Attorney General Crow. a motion was
HEARING e % from ~ the tiies '"e '"0''oH LOT re-
s,i III Git, me eaSe bfop pi James .',ns from ran
the Juvenile Court bill, the return of Sheriff
Following is a list OF opinions and mo-
'.' OPINIONS COURT IN BaNc.
in re. West Terrace Park, Kansas City. VI,
Isleii -: it;ido,,,y ,,d r.,,uo,,, cor,-,,,
SsTsfh TSiiant afd r.: ltHanied' with directions
| Daznn ys Fidelity and Casualty Cor,,,nv. r..
directions
v,t ,,obiL,., d;ian 3tli4'''e iI'use. e'c E'ai's'
| CAN'T. j.:
state es Tni Gdsnsn W. vs. la 49, ifrrnse
ats ex x rel rel ctia vs. W. H, aIm.d af.d
afmed, ati eA rel i'o'"e'''"'"er w. f'S"es' az
| state OK rel. Manager We Hawes. affirmed.
state ex rel. Huebler ys. Hawes: affirmed
2;ss@ * rel . Kennedy w. Have Hawcs: .'alfh nfaf@ed
S,, ex e Te I i1iS y lac. w iMs tHE,,n od
| state ex rel Miller VS.. Hawes; reversed
S, ex rel MS,,;hv xs u:.wese yeYa-ssd
aate eS rel C;,,tgeseI vs Uawes: reversed
sta,e ex rel i0unE ~ vs. nSs na%es averd reyessfd
sta,e * re- rel ay aye w W. uaass
STATE OK rel L.aber VS.. Hawes: reversed.
| s'a'e 90 i''' uDTISEs' t.rf"
| p,bo,,, Ys 1-nioT I,atrv t:omnanv. e,ne,i JIs
| ignJ r. a,roiiart ' ''' "pp t
Weleh ys. Kansas city judgment AHMED OF
sIpuatsinm. 90 t,t,s. iudr,nen. ,fsrrned n, s,,,,,
lation '@'''
s,,iafimn Biaihnin w. 'u's'e"' Ai''''"e' OF
Rider vs. Dworkowitz; judgment affirmed b!
| consent. r,. ro,.t,. ,,a,uto,. ,o,,,,, =,
Ex parte James i'o'iHB' peu'i'h' return O
shriin hIed. .,,o-,o,, f:o,ero, -. r &c
Te Fy CO. mot9p s4o OF . Tss'ndent to strike mo
t'9n ior d enn nm ys Alien. RESPONDENTS re
turn fled: stipulation as as to facts and defnurre
% In re F:eieral Lad company vs.; sou,h Mis-
respondent flied.
DeGeofroy vs. st. Louis Merchants Bridge an
Terminal Hallway Company argued ana suo
mitteG. .,., $40
! CAN'T, l.. j.. ,-.., I......