Case Name: The People ex rel. Edward Walsh v. Charles F. MacLean et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-01-24
Citations: 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 108
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People ex rel. Edward Walsh v. Charles F. MacLean et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 29
Pages: 108–110

Head Matter:
The People ex rel. Edward Walsh v. Charles F. MacLean et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
Filed January 24, 1890.)
1. Municipal corporations—Police—Removal.
The rule of the New York police department requiring charges to be made against any officer who, while on duty, shall draw his pistol on a citizen or use his club, except in self -defense, contemplates a case of an intentional use of the pistol.
2. Same.
The evidence in this case showed that relator fired his pistol in the air to attract a brother officer while watching suspicious characters. In some manner the bullet struck a citizen who was passing. Held, That the evidence did not show that relator intentionally pointed his pistol at any person, and was insufficient to justify his removal.
(Daniels J., dissents.)
Writ of certiorari to review judgment of the police commissioners.
H. A. Gumbleton, for relator; John J. Delaney, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Brady, J.
The specification of the alleged violation of the rules of the department was that the relator " drew his pistol on a citizen and fired a shot not in self-defense." The rule is as follows:
Rule 199. Captains shall make charges against any patrolman under their command who shall, through neglect of duty, fail to discover a homicide, burglary, or serious breach of the peace committed on his beat, during his tour of duty, or who shall neglect to take proper measures to arrest any parties guilty of such offenses, or who, while on duty, shall draw his pistol on a citizen or use his club except in self-defense.
There is no evidence in the return showing a violation of this rule in any respect. It contemplates an intentional use of the pistol; in other words, that it shall be drawn upon a citizen intentionally, and not in self-defense. The circumstances under which the pistol was drawn are detailed by the relator, and by him only. He did not draw it upon Mr. Coleman, the injured man, or upon any one. He did not see Coleman until after the shot was fired. He fired to attract a brother officer, while watching suspicious characters, and therefore in performance of one of his duties. He fired it in the air, and this means, in accordance with the popular, or general understanding of that phrase, that he held his pistol upward, and it was that use of it which resulted in the accident to Mr. Coleman, which was, indeed, an accident and wholly unintentional. The ball from the pistol no doubt struck some part of the structure of the elevated railway and ricocheted or deflected and in consequence struck Coleman. This would and should explain the occurrence. The history of accidents and, indeed, of wars show many injuries arising from the deflection suggested, which it might be interesting to embrace here by way of illustration, but it is not necessary, and therefore may, and perhaps should be omitted. However this may be regarded from a scientific standpoint the fact still remains that the relator did not intentionally, or otherwise, point his pistol at any person. His offense, if any, was a careless use of his weapon, the possible consequences of which he did not foresee.
The evidence being insufficient either in fact or in its tending to show the alleged violation of duty, we have the power to correct the error committed in removing the relator. People ex rel. Hart v. Fire Commissioners, 82 N. Y., 858. For, these reasons the proceedings of the commissioners should be reversed and the relator restored. Ordered accordingly.
Van Brunt, P. J., concurs.