Case Name: The People ex rel. Edward Fanning, App'lt, v. Charles F. MacLean et al., Com'rs, Resp'ts
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-02-11
Citations: 36 N.Y. St. Rep. 830
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People ex rel. Edward Fanning, App’lt, v. Charles F. MacLean et al., Com’rs, Resp’ts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 36
Pages: 830–831

Head Matter:
The People ex rel. Edward Fanning, App’lt, v. Charles F. MacLean et al., Com’rs, Resp’ts.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
Filed February 11, 1891.)
Municipal cobpobations—Police—Removal.
Relator was removed on" a charge of intoxication. Three witnesses, in- eluding the police surgeon, testified that he was under iiie_ influence of liquor; while relator’s witnesses testified generally to an earlier hour, and relator testified that he took a single drink before going to bed and his condition resulted from that act. Held, that there was no such preponderance of evidence in his favor as called for a reversal.
Certiorari to review the removal of the relator.
Louis J. Grant, for app’lt; JohnJ. Delaney, for respts.

Opinion:
Brady, J.
The charge against the relator was intoxication. The testimony given to sustain it was sufficient for that purpose, and although the evidence in response tended to show that he was not intoxicated as charged, it was not so preponderating as to require us to set aside the determination of the commissioners. Unless the evidence preponderates so as to thus demand our judgment the appeal is not available. People ex rel. McAleer v. French et al., 119 N. Y., 502; 30 N. Y. State Rep., 72. Three witnesses, including a police surgeon, the latter having examined him especially to ascertain his condition, proclaimed that he was under the influence of liquor and the proof in his favor related generally to an earlier hour than that proof, and was negative in character as to that time, although some witnesses, including the relator, spoke of the hour and time stated the charge. The answeir of the relator was that he had taken a single drink of whiskey before going to bed and that his condition, whatever it was, resulted from that act. This court can do nothing for him. The responsibilities of policemen are such that unless they must be in condition to assume them and not voluntarily unfit themselves for duty. Perhaps it may be well to say that the better way, say the best way, for a policeman to retain his shield and to advance in the line of promotion is to be what known as a temperance man. The social pleasures to be derived from tippling are dangerous allies and should be ¿voided if possible. It may be regarded as a great sacrifice to give up such practice, but the greater sacrifice of position preponderates in importance in every possible view that can be taken of it.
Judgment affirmed.
Van Brunt, P. J., and Daniels, J., concur.