Case Name: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Patrick Hughes v. Mayor Horatio S. Sandford, Commissioner of Public Works, etc., and Others
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-07
Citations: 96 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 605
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Patrick Hughes v. Mayor Horatio S. Sandford, Commissioner of Public Works, etc., and Others.
Judges: Pratt and Dykman, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 96
Pages: 605–605

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Patrick Hughes v. Mayor Horatio S. Sandford, Commissioner of Public Works, etc., and Others.
Determination annulled, and relator restored to his position, with fifty dollars costs.—

Opinion:
Brown, P. J.:
This proceeding is a certiorari to review the determination of the respondents dismissing the relator from the position of fireman in the fire department. The respondents were empowered to remove employees for incapacity, neglect of duty or misconduct." The relator was charged with neglecting to feed or water horses left in his charge from nine o'clock p. m. on July twentieth, to three-thirty p. ar. on July 21, 1898. It appears that at twelve-thirty a. ar., July twenty-first, an alai'm summoned the relator and h:s company to a large fire, and he was on duty there the balance of that night and part of the next day. The only witness called to substantiate the charge was Alexander Grady, the company's foreman. He knew nothing of the matter himself, but testified that he believed the charge was true. He swore to a conversation with Hughes which, it was claimed, amounted to an admission of the charge of neglect. Hughes denied on the witness stand that he admitted to Grady that the horses were not fed or watered until the aftern,oon of the twenty-first, and it appeared by uncontradicted evidence that they were fed about nine o'clock in the morning, and were watered about eleven o'clock. The charge of neglect was not proved, and the commissioners were not authorized to dismiss the relator. The order must be reversed and the relator restored to his position, with fifty dollars costs.
Pratt and Dykman, JJ., concurred.