Case Name: The People ex rel. WM. Gorman agt. The Board of Metropolitan Police
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1858-06
Citations: 16 How. Pr. 115
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People ex rel. WM. Gorman agt. The Board of Metropolitan Police.
Judges: 
Reporter: Howard's Practice Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 115–119

Head Matter:
COURT OF APPEALS.
The People ex rel. WM. Gorman agt. The Board of Metropolitan Police.
The relator was a member of the old police of the city of New-York. When the Metropolitan police came into existence, they entertained charges against the relator for alleged “ wilful disobedience of orders and insubordination.” The specification of the charge was, “ refusing to obey the orders of his superior officer, on the 18th day of June, 1851.”
On the 23d of June, a notice requiring the relator to appear before the Board of Police, at a specified time'and place, to answer io the charge, was delivered, to an officer for service, but instead of being served personally, it was left at a station-house, where it was received by another person, by whom it was retained. Neither the notice nor its contents came to the notice of the relator.
The officer who had been charged with the service of the notice, and who had onl.v left such notice at the station-house with a person who promised to deliver it to the relator, made an affidavit of the service of such notice, and upon this proof the Board of Police proceeded at the time and place specified, to hear and determine the case. On June 26th, it was adjudged that the charge was established, and that the relator be dismissed from the service of the department.
Held, that under the 1th section of the act under which these proceedings were held, and which declares that no person shall be removed from office, “ except upon written charges preferred against him to the Board of Police, and after an opportunity shall have been afforded him for being heard in his defence,” the Board of Police had no authority to proceed. Their order of dismissal was void for want of jurisdiction. This was equally so whether at the time the proceedings were instituted, the relator was in office or not.
June Term, 1858.

Opinion:
Roosevelt, Justice.
This pase involves necessarily a single question. The 7th section of the new Police Act provides that no person shall be removed from office in the department except upon written charges and " after an opportunity shall have been afforded him of being heard in his defence." And in the 11th section it is declared that " no person who shall ever have been removed from the police force (established by this act) for cause, shall be re-appointed by the Board of Police to any office in the said police force." The judgment of removal rendered by the commissioners against Gorman, the relator, was pronounced without notice; or at least without any such notice as the law can recognize in a case involving such, serious consequences to the individual charged, as well as to the public. The case states that the notices of the charge made and of the time of trial, " were never delivered or their contents communicated to the men, and that the relator was not aware of the notice." In a legal sense, the relator had no " opportunity of being heard- in his defence."- The order of removal was, therefore, void for want of jurisdiction. But although a nullity in itself, it involves an apparent deprivation of a legal right. It is consequently a proper subject of review, and being palpably erroneous, should not be allowed to stand.
Without considering the question whether the relator has resigned, abdicated or repudiated the office which was tendered to him, or in which he was continued, by the new law, or any of the other questions which have been argued by the counsel, and reserving those questions for further advisement until the case of McCune shall be disposed of, the order under review shall be quashed on the single ground of want of due notice.
Judgment of the supreme court accordingly affirmed.