People ex rel. Linehan v. Martin — 35 N.Y.S. 377

Majority

p. 377

(89 Hun, 373.)

PEOPLE ex rel. LINEHAN v. MARTIN et al.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

October 18, 1895.)

Headnote

Policemen—Discharge—Adjournment of Hearing.

Refusal of the police board to adjourn a hearing of charges against a policeman, to enable him to procure witnesses, is not an abuse of discretion, where he did not state the names of any persons whom he desired to call, and was not sworn in his own behalf, and made no defense, and five days afterwards filed an affidavit stating the names of persons by whom he testified that he could dispute the charge.

p. 378

Certiorari by Michael Linehan to review the action of James J. Martin and others, constituting the board of police commissioners of the city of New York, in dismissing relator from the police force. Dismissed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and FOLLETT and PARKER, JJ.

Louis J. Grant, for relator.

Terence Farley, for respondents.

The relator, a patrolman, was dismissed from the police service for intoxication. A written notice of the charge made against him, and that it would be investigated November 15, 1893, was personally served on the relator November 10, 1893. He appeared before the board with counsel, and asked for an adjournment to procure witnesses, but did not state the name of any person whom he desired to call. The charge was proved by two witnesses, the captain of the precinct and a police surgeon. The relator was not sworn in his own behalf, and made no defense. Five days after the hearing, he made and filed an affidavit with the commissioners, in which he stated the names of three persons by whom he testified that he could disprove the charge made against him. Why the names of the witnesses were not given on the hearing, or not earlier furnished, is not disclosed. It is not asserted that erroneous rulings were made on the hearing, and the only ground upon which we are asked to reverse the proceedings is because an adjournment was refused. We think the board did not abuse its discretion. He had five days’ notice of the hearing, and, so far as the case shows, made no effort to have his witnesses subpoenaed. When confronted with the charge, he declined to be sworn, and gave no evidence that he had any defense on the merits.

The writ should be dismissed, with costs. All concur.