The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1920-09-24
DISTRICT COU RT WILL
Be FINAL JUDI C|A RY
ADJ JUD| CA TIN 6 CA s {
AGAINST POLICE CHIEF
ATTORNEYS FOR CHANCELLOR
CARRY MATTER TO HIGHER
POWER; MAYOR AND THE
BOARD ORDERED NOT
TO INTERFERE

j. NJ. Chancellor is still chief of
police, despite the action of the mayor
and board OF city commissioners,
Thursday night, when the board de-
clared him no longer member of the
official family by a vote of three to
one, at the end Of lengthy discus
sion which lasted the better part of
two nights.
When the commissioners voted to
unseat the chief Of police he. through
his attorneys, Mathers and Coakley,
and A. j. Hardy, prepared writ OF
certiorari, and presented the same to
the district court asking that the
chief of police not be interfered with
in the performance of his duty and
also that the mayor and board OF
city commissioners certify all records
and evidence introduced in the case
tried before the city commissioners
be certified TO the district court for
reviewal
The style OF the case filed in dis
trict court this morning is:
d. NJ. 1HdllCtllOls lleiihNAAAf N's W .
F. Freeman. mayor; A. c. Young, j..
L. Wilson, Roy Shores, viii Fraley,
commissioners, and L. NJ. Thurston'
clerk of the city Of Ardmore, defend
ants.
Plaintiffs petition sets forth the
following allegations.
THAT the plaintiff is the duly elect
/ nf nAlira of the
city of Ardmore. elected by the peo-
pie; that the defendants, the mayor
and board of city commissioners have
| filed certain charges against the plain
tiff. setting forth general neglect and
failure of this plaintiff to perform
his duties.
That upon said complaints, defend
ants have held purported hearing or
trial. and after such hearing have
rendered judgment removing from Of
| flee the chief OF police.
Petition further states that charges
and complaints so filed and the hear
ing and proceedings thereon, and the
purported judgment thereon are null
and void for reasons:
4
ordinances under which same were
filed and held are void in that they
make no provisions for appeal and
makes no provision to protect per-
son attacked hereunder in their right
TO a fair and impartial trial.
THAT charges filed were too vague
and uncertain TO appraise the plain
tiff OF the charges against him and
10 enable him to prepare a defense.
An attempts of plaintiff TO protect
himself from being tried by his en-
emies and by persons who had al
ready pre-judged and determined the
case against him, and who were bias
ed. partial and hostile against this
plaintiff. were denied
That the mayor who presided upon
said trial, Ned and swore TO the
charges against plaintiff, passed upon
the sufnciency OF the charges, refus
cd to disqualfy himself upon proper
showing by plaintiff under oath; that
the said mayor was hostile to plain
tiff and his personal enemy, and
would not give plaintiff a fair ant
impartial trial. and that the mayor
presided at the trial, ruled upon the
admission of evidence. at variou.
times during the trial coached ant
prompted the prosecuting attorney
that the mayor and other commission
ers made no attempt to conceal dur
ing the tria' their anlmoslty towart
plaintiff. and their determination t'
render judgment against him regard
less of law or evidence.
That said trial was mockery O
justice and a travesty upon American
tradition OF justice and fair play; thai
plaintiff was deprived of the ordl
nary rights granted to a lltigant II
any court.
That incompetent evidence was in
troduced against defendant with |
ruthless disregard Of his rights. an,
evidence offered on his behalf whicl
was competent was denied: that all o
said evidence being ruled upon ant
passed upon by the mayor, who n
the same time was the complaining
witness, the presiding judge and tn
trier Of the facts. that the mayor wa
Continued on page y