Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1920-01-08


taking testimony A majority of the
committee made a report sustaining
charges against the water commission
ers; but the report was defeated by a tie
vote when brought before n meeting OF
the aldermen Later the mayor brought
before the city council l2 written charges
relating 10 the matters covered by the
report Of the committee appointed by the
aldermen, and which has been denied
by tie vote at meeting OF the alder
men, and the same was tried by the
city council and the hearing was con-
Quoted by the mayor
1t was there objected that the city
council as then constituted was without
Jurisdiction. because part of its mem
hers had preiudged the case on a former
hearing, and because Of the active part
taken by tho mayor. But this court held
that the constitution of the city council,
its exclusive jurisdiction as trier and
the diversity of duties imposed upon IT,
precluded the idea that impartiality can
he made the test of the right of its mem
bers 10 sit in n hearing affecting the sub
ordinate officers of the city government.
II must be admitted that much
stronger case was there presented for
holding the city council disqualified be-
cause Of the dual position of prosecutor
and trier than is here presented. Here
the PROCEEDINGS were begun by the city
attorney under the direction Of the city
council by vote OF that body. who. with
the assistance of other counsel. prose
cuted the case from beginning to end
without the city council taking any FUR
Their part IN it, except to hear the evil
denCe and pass upon the questions arising
before it, The motion was properly over
ruled.
The last motion to dismiss. follow
ms the decision of the city council
that the charge Of negligence and bad
conduct had been made ont. was based
upon the claim that the findings were
not sustained by the evidence. This
motion in some respects resembles a
motion for directed verdict. If there
il any evidence tending to support the
findings of the city council, its weight
and the sufficiency of the cause is for
the city council to determine and the
action therein will not be reviewed by
this court Rutter ct al vs. Burke et
al. supra If either charge was support
ed by the evidence the motion was pro
perly overrulcd. We think there was
evidence supporting the finding of bad
conduct. Earlier in this opinion we
have held that Bergcron did perform
labor and furnish material under Il
contract with the city. in which he was
interested and received pay for It out
of the city treasury. and II il not
claimed by the petitioners that that
contract was awarded upon a hid adj
Nertised for as required by section l2i
Of the city charter. The contract.
therefore, was I'm violation of that sec
ton. which reads as follows. mo city
officer shall be directly or Indirectly
interested in any contract with said
city for an amount in excess of twenty
five dollars. or furnish any material
or perform any labor except in the
discharge Of his official duties. for
which said city officer shall receive a
sum III excess Of twenty-five dollars,
unless such contract shall have been
awarded upon bids advertised for by
qualifications in two issues of at least
two newspapers printed in said city at
least six days previous to the opening
of such bids" Under this section of the
charter the contract was illegal and void.
The municipality had no power 10 make
it. II was ultra wires. city of Bangor
V Ridley, supra II was bad conduct on
the part of Bergeron Il Son to enter
into the contract and take pay from the
city on account of IT, being. as tho mem
boris were. officers of the city. and ii was
bad conduct ON the part Of the street
commissioners 10 approve the bills and
was in violation of the express provisions
of tho charter as well as of the prinCi-
pies Of the common Law and against pub
lie policy. II Dillon Nun. Cor. 18th ed.
sec. 772.773 It s contendcd by the petit
TONERS that in the urgency of the par