Case Name: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Eugene A. Masterson, Relator, v. James J. Martin and Others, Police Commissioners, Composing the Board of Police Commissioners of the Police Department of the City of New York, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1897
Citations: 17 A.D. 555
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Eugene A. Masterson, Relator, v. James J. Martin and Others, Police Commissioners, Composing the Board of Police Commissioners of the Police Department of the City of New York, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 555–567

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Eugene A. Masterson, Relator, v. James J. Martin and Others, Police Commissioners, Composing the Board of Police Commissioners of the Police Department of the City of New York, Respondents.
Dismissal from the Kero York police foi’ce—set aside where the accused has been imisled by the statements of one of the commissioners—return to a certiorari.
Where it appears that a police commissioner, before whom alone the testimony upon charges made against a member of the force was given, assured the accused that he would move to strike out the testimony of the two principal witnesses against him and .recommend to the police hoard a dismissal of the charges, and stated that he, therefore, had no desire to hear any more witnesses, and he thereafter neglects, at the meeting of the police hoard, to do as he has promised, or the hoard overrules his recommendation and the accused is dismissed from the force, the action of the hoard should he reversed and the accused he reinstated..
Rumsey and Ingraham, JJ., dissented.
When, on a return to a writ of certiorari, the record may he supplemented by other proofs of what took place, considered.
Certiorari issued out of the Supreme Court, and attested the 26th clay of April, 1895, directed to James J. Martin and others, composing the board of police commissioners of the police department of the city of New York, commanding them to certify and return to the clerk of the county of New York all and singular their proceedings relating to the dismissal of the relator from the police force of the police department of the city of New York.
There were a number of charges against the relator, any of which, if properly established, would justify his dismissal from the force. The hearing on the charges was begun before one of the commissioners alone on J une 20,1894, and another session was had on J uly fifth, when the two principal witnesses, Guy and Browne, called to support the charges, not having completed their testimony, witnesses were directed to attend without further notice. On the subsequent session, July, eleventh, Giving to the absence of one of these witnesses, the other was ordered to notify the complaint clerk so that he could get the absent one, and a day was then to be fixed for the hearing. At last, on September nineteenth, a hearing was had, when the complaint clerk swore to futile efforts made to get either of these witnesses to attend, and his inability to serve them with a subpoena. It appears' that the witness. Browne had asked for an adjournment to get Guy; that Guy’s testimony was not finished, and at his request, when under cross-examination, the hearing was adjourned.;: and that,. ’notwithstanding ' promises of Browne and many attendances by the relator, neither Browne nor Guy ever appeared to finish their examination. A motion was made that Guy’s, testimony be striken from the. record for lfis failure to come back. The commissioner stated that he would make such recommendation to the- board; and at a full meeting- of the board thereafter he did recommend, that the- evidence of Browne and Guy be stricken out and the' charge dismissed,
It appears by the minutes of the trial that,' after the. -motion. was made to strike out, the relator’s counsel'stated : “ There are, if necessary,. three or four witnesses, who' would substantiate, the officer’s testimony, but-1 don’t, think it necessary to- call them.” ' It was .insisted that this last statement followed an assurance given by the trial commissioner that he intended to- recommend the' dismissal of •the complaint and that he did not desire to'. hear any more testb mony., Reither in the- sten ographer’s' minutes; of .the trial nor in the. return first made. did tins.statement by the;.commissioner appear; and with a view to showing to the corirt what actually occurred both upon the trial and before the full1 hoard,' about which there was .also a dispute, the relator sought to have the.minutes of the trial and the record of the subsequent proceedings' before the board, as they appeared by the return made to .the"writ, corrected. In doing so he encountered considerable difficulty, because the board, at the time of the dismissal, was composed- of an entirely different. set of. commissioners from those in office at the time the return was made to the writ. There was in such return an evident mistake, namely,,a statement' that “ at a meeting of your respondents, at which all of your respondents were present,” the relator was sentenced unanimously. This was not the fact,..for the. reason that the hoard was differently constituted.. The return" in, other parts"shows that those making it had no knowledge of what took place, but were wholly dependent-,on" the records for tlleir information. To get the facts as claimed by the relator .before the court, affidavits were filed by both sides with the boai-d then in office and making the return, and these were made a part of the- return, and the court was .asked to consider them “ in order not to do possible injustice to the said relator.” A further return ivas ordered by the Special Term on an application made; and this not being sufficient to bring out all the facts as claimed by the relator, another order was made that the former commissioner, who tried the relator, be made a party defendant and make a return herein. By the original return it appeared, according to the records of the board, that the trial commissioner recommended the granting of the motion of counsel to strike out and the dismissal of the charge; but in the judgment of dismissal itself it appeared that all the commissioners present, including the trial commissioner, voted “aye.” By the return of the trial commissioner, however, it appears that he voted “ no ” upon the question whether the said charges were true, and against the dismissal of tire said relator, and in favor of the dismissal of the charges, and that the statement in the judgment of dismissal that he voted “aye” is untrue. On the other hand, to support the entry in the judgment, we have certain affidavits filed by the prosecution, and the records of the police department. The first affidavit by the stenographer was directed to showing the correctness of his notes, and that the trial commissioner’s recollection was in fault. The same stenographer, however, later made another affidavit which is part of the second return in which he says that after reading the commissioner’s affidavit he is unable to deny what the commissioner swears to, and admits that frequently he did not take down the statements of commissioners on trials of policemen, and may not have done so in this case. The affidavits of the clerk and deputy clerk of the board are to the effect that the minutes of the board show that the relator was dismissed by the unanimous vote of all the commissioners, and a copy of the resolution is annexed to the clerk’s affidavit. By the affidavit and the return of the trial commissioner, it further appears that, on the motion being made to strike out, he considered it should be .granted and stated that he would recommend to the full board that it ought to be granted, and had done so afterwards at the full board; and that at the last hearing, being informed that additional witnesses were present for the relator, he stated that, inasmuch as he intended to recommend the dismissal of the complaint, he did not desire to hear any more testimony.
Louis J. Grant, for the relator.
Theodore Gonnoly, for the respondents.

Opinion:
O'Brien, J.:
Were there no questions presented but those relating to the merits, we could easily dispose of this appeal. We have frequently held that the good of the service requires that a. wide discretion should be vested in the commissioners, and that their j ndgment, unless there ' is an absence of evidence to sustain'it, will not be disturbed. This is but a corollary of the rule that the board of police being the statutory judges of offenses against discipline and efficiency of the force, their finding on the facts,: though the evidence is conflicting ' or contradictory, is conclusive. We have not, therefore, referred to the merits,, nor do we think a. discussion thereof proper, because the ; principal question is, Was- the relator dismissed after a fair trial ?
Justice requires upon a trial that the hearing shall be full and fair ; and where, it appears that through- design or inadvertence this has not been accorded; or where by the action of the judge, or in reliance upon .his assurance, the accused lias been induced to withhold testimony in his favor, and is thereby prejudiced, it is but right that a judgment against him, upon such facts appearing, should not stand: In reaching a conclusion here as to. whether the relator was - misled or prejudiced, we should carefully .note the distinction . between the dispute which has arisen as to the facts themselves appearing on the trial, arid those which-relate to the subsequent pro-' -ceedirigs before the board of. police-,, when 'the trial commissioner made llis report and when the relator, not being present, was dismissed. There is an. undoubted conflict between the record of what' took place at the meeting of the police board, and the recollection •of the trial- corinnissioner, which we think it-unnecessary to decide; because if it is shown that the trial commissioner'assured the relator that he would move to strike, out the testimony of the two principal witnesses against him,- and recommend a dismissal of the charges, and that, therefore, he'had no desire to hear any more witnesses, and that afterwards when with his associates at the board meeting lie overlooked his promise,, and forgot or neglected to fulfill it, it was as prejudicial to the relator as though he had informed his .associates'fully of the facts, and had recommended and voted for. a dismissal of the charges, and been voted down. For if the trial commissioner, by assurances that it was unnecessary, had induced the relator to withhold evidence of witnesses then in court who might have proved his innocence, then clearly he was not fairly tried ; and upon a statement of such facts to the board, they should, if they differed with the trial commissioner, have afforded the relator the opportunity to produce such witnesses before deciding that he was.guilty. If, on the other hand, the trial commissioner did not fully apprise them of what lie had done on the trial, or of the assurances given by him to the relator, that it was unnecessary to. call any more witnesses, and the board without .being so informed proceeded to judgment, then we must reach the same result, because their determination to dismiss was reached in ignorance of the facts.
Except as affecting the credibility of the trial commissioner, what occurred before the full board, or what appears by its records, is to a great extent immaterial. The question is, What took place upon the trial ? not, What occurred at the subsequent meetings of the board ? The relator was not present at such meetings and was not in a position there to protect his rights; and if the trial commissioner neglected to present the facts fully, or having fully presented them, if he was voted down, we think that justice in either case requires that the judgment of dismissal should not stand. This brings us, therefore, to what we regard as the crucial question in the case, and that is as to whether the trial commissioner upon the trial gave such assurances that, relying thereon, the relator was induced to withhold witnesses who were in court, and whom for that reason he did not call to prove his innocence.
Upon this question, as to what occurred upon the trial, while the stenographer's minutes do not show that any assurances were given, it was because of that fact that the many proceedings were taken which have resulted in presenting the affidavits of the stenographer and the return of the trial commissioner. This course was deemed necessary, because the commissioners in office at the time the first return was made were no more cognizant of what took place upon the trial than were the associates of the trial commissioner who made the final return; and the only doubt created or question raised as to what took place upon the trial is that presented by the presumption of the correctness of the stenographer's minutes, supple- men ted by the affidavits of the stenographer,, as 'contrasted with the return and affidavit made by the trial commissioner. There was no other way of disposing of the .question as to the fullness of' the stenographer's minutes and their'accuracy than to-require a return' by the trial commissioner. Such-return, supplemented as it is by corroborating affidavits, ive think, should betaken as true.. The commissioner states- under oath what the rélatór insists, then occurred, viz., that the commissioner at the last 'hearing, being- informed that additional1. witnesses were present, stated that, inasmuch ás he intended to recommend the dismissal of the complaint, he did not desire to hear any more testimony. It will be noticed that, while the-stenographer in his first affidavit endeavored to uphold the accuracy of his notes, 'and .was inclined to think that the commissioner's recollection was in fault, he receded from this position in his-subsequent affidavit by' saying that he was unable to deny the. truth of the commissioner's statement, and admitted, that frequently he did not take down statements made by commissioners on trials of policemen,, because- he did not regard them as part of the minutes-of the trial, and that he may not have done so in this .particular .case.'' The commissioner, is corroborated,, moreover, by. the record of the board of police, from which it appears that at a meeting of the full boaqdhe did recommend both striking out and that the charges be dismissed. It thus appears that the minutes of the trial, in consequence of CominissionerSheehan's refusal to hear testimony, do.not contain all- the evidence of -the relator;. and also that the only commissioner who took the evidence, and was acquainted with all the facts and circumstances,., recommended that all-the'mate rial-parts, of the evidence be stricken'out. We' concede that- if all the evidence was in the record the other commissioners' would -not be bound by the views of the trial commissioner " as to the disposition to be made of. the motioiq nor bound to sustain his vieWS'.that. the charges should-be dismissed. , But where, as here, it appears that the relator was led to close his case without calling three or-four .witnesses then present in court, because the commissioner stated that "he would récoimmend the-board" to strike out the testimony, and for -that re'ason would not -hear any more testimony, it would, be unjust for the commissioners, with or without knowledge' of what. took, place at the trial, and in the absence of' the relator, to refuse to .grant the motion to strike out and pro-. ceed to pass judgment of dismissal. The course for the commissioners to have taken, would have been, with the knowledge of the facts before them,' to send the case back and afford the relator the opportunity to put in- any further testimony -he might have to-offer. It may be that these hearings are not to be technically regarded as common-law trials; but on any trial, common law 01-otherwise, if, as in this case, the accused is not accorded a full and fair trial, then the course taken resulting in his conviction is against, all rules and the very spirit of justice. -
Our conclusion is that the action of the respondents should be-reversed, with costs, and the relator restored to his office.
Williams and Parker, JJ., concurred.