Case Name: The People ex rel. Gilbert Higgins v. Abraham Tappen et al., Park Commissioners
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-12
Citations: 15 Misc. 23
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People ex rel. Gilbert Higgins v. Abraham Tappen et al., Park Commissioners.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 23–25

Head Matter:
The People ex rel. Gilbert Higgins v. Abraham Tappen et al., Park Commissioners.
(New York Superior Court—General Term,
December, 1895.)
1. Police—Removal—-Conduct unbecoming an officer.
An officer who makes an improper- arrest as the result of design is guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer.
2. Same—Determination of commissioners.
' Where there was a fair conflict in the evidence, or it was such that different inferences might properly be drawn from it, the determination -of the commissioners will not be interfered with unless it is clearly against the weight of evidence and appears to have been influenced by passion, prejudice, mistake or corruption.
Certiorari, to review the action of the board of park commissioners of the city of Hew York in removing the relator from the park police force.
Louis J. Grant, for relator.
Francis M. Scott, Counsel to the Corporation (Terence Farley, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
McAdam, J
The relator was tried on the charge that while on duty in the Central Park, in citizen's clothes, he" did, on January 1,1894, between three and four p. m., unjustifiably arrest Mr. Elliott Sandford on the charge of having committed an indecent assault upon the relator's person, the said last-mentioned charge being false and untrue. '
It was charged that while Mr. Sandford was in the monkey, house of the Central Park menagerie at the time mentioned-, looking at the animals, with his gloved hands behind his back, he put his hands upon the person of the officer and squeezed him. The explanation Mr. Sandford gave was that the monkey house was crowded with sightseers; that on that account the officer pushed up against him, and that if his hands did come in contact with the person of the officer it was by the officer's pressure against him and-without any-intention on his part. The explanation is highly probable and is no doubt true. At all events the respondents found, upon evidence which amply sustains their finding, that the arrest was unwarranted. They had'jurisdiction to try the charges against the relator, jvliich involved not only the question whether he made an- improper arrest, but whether it was the- result of design rather than accidentif it was, and the evidence sufficiently sustains the commissioners in so finding, the relator w'as guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer, which fully justifies his discharge.
The authorities uniformly hold that if there be a fair conflict in the evidence, or if it be such that different inferences might be properly drawn from it, the determination, of the commissioners, like'the verdict of a jury, will not be interfered with unless it is clearly against the weight of evidence and appears to have been influenced by passion, prejudice, mistake or corruption. While the respondents may have been pleased to have the opportunity of vindicating a gentleman of char-' acter from the peculiarly offensive charge made, the record does not warrant imputing to them passion, prejudice o.r corruption. We are satisfied that they acted conscientiously, and with a sense of the responsibility attending their position,- and find no reason to dissent from the result at which they arrived.
That "the relator was wrong in making the arrest clearly appears by the proofs. That he was.liable to err maybe-assumed from the fact that his record discloses fourteen separate charges,, extending from 1882 to 1889, having been fined for neglect of duty, violation of rules, conduct unbecom ing an officer, insubordination, and being off post and neglect, pf duty. These' things. give color to the theory that in this instance the relator may have been .as unmindful of his duty as in the fourteen other cases where he had been so adjudged. The adjudication must be affirmed, with costs.
Freedman and Gildersléeve, JJ.j concur.
Adjudication affirmed, with costs.