Majority
Headnote
Discharge of Policeman.The relator, a patrolman of the police force of the city of New York, was charged with conduct unbecoming an officer; the specification being that the said relator “was so much under the influence of intoxicating liquor as to be unfit for duty in the 18th precinct station house at 1:45 p. m., July 4, 1896, during his tour of patrol duty.” Rule 193 of the police force provides that any member of the police force may be dismissed from the office on conviction of intoxication, or of conduct unbecoming an officer. The only question before us is whether there was any evidence before the police commissioners that tended to sustain this charge. The police surgeon testified that when he saw the relator in the station house he was “recovering from the effects of alcohol, and seemed slightly unsteady. His speech was thickened, and he admitted that he had been drinking.” The doctor further testified that when he saw him he was not fit to go on post. Upon cross-examination the surgeon testified that the conditions which he observed were those that would naturally
, “The weather, and the man being in an enemie condition; there being congestion or compression of the brain, a gastric disorder or fermentation,—certainly a man will not be so well able to answer his questions as if he were not suffering.”
Now, taking this testimony together, we do not think that there was sufficient evidence to justify a conviction of intoxication. The only evidence as to the relator’s taking any intoxicants at all is Ms own statement that he took two milk punches. This he took, upon the advice of his doctor, as medicine; and all the symptoms that were noticed by the surgeon or the other officers could with as much reason be attributed to the disease, and to walking in the hot sun in his then condition, as to the effect of the milk punches wMch he had taken. There was no evidence to show that the relator was in the habit of drinking. On the contrary, the testimony is that he was a sober man. This was the first charge that he had had preferred against him for intoxication, and the officer’s whole trouble seems to have been occasioned by his reluctance to report that he was sick, and his endeavor to perform Ms duty when his phvsical condition was such that he should have kept quiet. We fully recognize the rule that, where an officer is shown to have violated the regulations of the police department, his excuse is a matter solely for the commissioners to determine, and with its sufficiency we have nothing to do; but in this case, where all of the symptoms from which intoxication could be inferred could have been caused by a disease from which the undisputed evidence shows the relator was then suffering, and where it appears that all the liquor that the relator took was that prescribed for him by his physician as medicine for the disease, and that the amount was so small that it could hardly have intoxicated a healthy