Case Name: People ex rel. Clark v. French et al., Police Commissioners
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-02-14
Citations: 8 N.Y.S. 874
Docket Number: 
Parties: People ex rel. Clark v. French et al.. Police Commissioners.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 8
Pages: 874–876

Head Matter:
People ex rel. Clark v. French et al.. Police Commissioners.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
February 14, 1890.)
Municipal Corporations—Discharge op Policemen.
Dismissal of an officer by the police commissioners, on the ground of neglect of duty and conduct unbecoming an officer, will be affirmed on certiorari, where it appears that he was an habitual drinker, and always more or less “under the influence of liquor; ” though no overt act resulting from intoxication is charged. Brady, J., dissenting.
On certiorari to review the dismissal of Christopher Clark from the police force of the city of New York, by Stephen B. French and others, police commissioners.
Argued before Van Brunt, P. J., and Brady and Bartlett, JJ.
Louis J. Grant, for relator. W. H. Clark, Corp. Counsel, (William L. Turner, of counsel,) for respondents.

Opinion:
Van Brunt, P. J.
The relator was charged with neglect of duty and conduct unbecoming an officer, the specifications being that he was under the influence of liquor, and that he left his post without being relieved. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the latter specification or not, it is not necessary to discuss, as, if the former specification was established, the judgment of the commissioners must be affirmed. It is urged upon behalf of the relator that even if he was under the influence of liquor so that his face was red, his speech thick, his eyes inflamed, and although he had never been fully sober for several months, as was testified to by one of the witnesses, and so much .under the influence of liquor at the particular time that he was accused of neglect of duty, that he was unfit for duty, yet, no overt act of the relator except the mere fact of his being under the influence of liquor being proven, the charge of conduct unbecoming an officer was not made out. It does not seem to us that this point is well taken. The evidence tended to show that the relator was an habitual drinker; that he was more or less under the influence of drink all the time, which was a condition of things, if true, which should not be tolerated upon the police force. It is true that there was evidence which tended to contradict the evidence offered in support of the charge, but this was not so convincing that it would justify this court in reversing the decision of the commissioners. Upon the contrary, the weight of evidence seems to have been to the effect that the relator was so much under the influence of liquor as to be unfit for immediate active duty. The writ should be dismissed, with costs.
Bartlett, J., concurs.