Chenoweth v. Office of City Clerk of City of Los Angeles
| Decision Date | 15 March 1955 |
| Citation | 280 P.2d 858,131 Cal.App.2d 498 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Troy D. CHENOWETH, Petitioner and Appellant, v. OFFICE OF the CITY CLERK OF the CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Walter C. Peterson, City Clerk, Board of Civil Service Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles, and the Commissioners Thereof, Dan O. Hoye, City Controller, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 20310. |
Wirin, Rissman & Okrand and Hugh R. Manes, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Roger Arnebergh, City Atty., Bourke Jones, Alan G. Campbell, Asst. City Attys and George William Adams, Deputy City Atty., Los Angeles, for respondents.
Troy D. Chenoweth was an employee of the City of Los Angeles for more than eighteen years. His last position in the city's service was assistant chief, License and Sales Tax Division, Office of the City Clerk.
Mr. Chenoweth became convinced that certain of his associates in the City Clerk's office were guilty of corrupt misconduct in the administration of the law, and in the collection of license, use, and sales taxes. So he wrote several letters to the Mayor of the city, making these charges.
The Mayor decided to hold a hearing to investigate the charges, and notified Mr. Chenoweth to be present and substantiate them. Section 63(2), City Charter, Stats.1925, p. 1054. But at the hearing when the Mayor called upon Mr. Chenoweth to be sworn and to state the facts upon which his charges were based, he refused to be sworn, or two make any statement.
His chief, the City Clerk, who was also present at the Mayor's hearing, directed Mr. Chenoweth to be sworn, and to state the facts upon which he based his charges. Mr. Chenoweth still refused.
The Mayor continued the hearing for two days, when Mr. Chenoweth was again directed to be sworn and to state his charges. This time he gave as a reason for his continued refusal that he had advised the grand jury of his charges, and would talk to that body only.
The City Clerk then discharged Mr. Chenoweth for insubordination, conduct harmful to the city's service, and refusal, failure, and neglect to perform the duties of his position.
Mr. Chenoweth applied to the Board of Civil Service Commissioners of the city for reinstatement. The Board held an extensive hearing, and voted to sustain Mr. Chenoweth's discharge.
Mr. Chenoweth then petitioned the Superior Court for a writ of mandate, directing the City to reinstate him in his former position, and to pay him his salary for the time he had been excluded from it. He appeals to this Court from the judgment denying his petition.
At the threshold of consideration of this case, this Court is met with an incomplete record. No reporter's transcript of the hearing in the Superior Court has been furnished. The general rule is that matters not shown by the record will not be considered on appeal. 3 Cal.Jur.2d 782. And in the absence of a reporter's transcript a reviewing court is confined to a determination whether the pleadings state a cause of action, whether the findings are within the issues, whether the judgment is supported by the findings, and whether reversible error appears upon the face of the record. Montaldo v. Hires Bottling Co., 59 Cal.App.2d 642, 139 P.2d 666.
However, this Court has sent for the file and exhibits in the Superior Court. There, as an exhibit, is to be found a reporter's transcript of the hearing before the Board of Civil Service Commissioners.
A review of the record shows that there was ample evidence before the Board to sustain the charges of insubordination, and conduct harmful to the City's service.
In a memorandum for counsel the trial judge said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kappadahl v. Alcan Pac. Co.
...41 Cal.2d 235, 259 P.2d 649; Riggins v. Board of Education (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 232, 235, 300 P.2d 848; Chenoweth v. Office of City Clerk (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 498, 501, 280 P.2d 858; 8 Stan.L.Rev. 563, 571, 580; 44 Cal.L.Rev. 262, 278, The trial court reviewed the record of the proceeding......
-
Sultan Turkish Bath, Inc. v. Board of Police Com'rs of City of Los Angeles
...in support of the findings of the board. Thompson v. City of Long Beach, 41 Cal.2d 235, 241, 259 P.2d 649; Chenoweth v. Office of City Clerk, 131 Cal.App.2d 498, 501, 280 P.2d 858. Viewing the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the bo......
-
Lorimore v. State Personnel Bd.
...Cal.App.2d 188, 337 P.2d 203; Southern Pac. Co. v. Public Utilities Com., supra, 41 Cal.2d 354, 260 P.2d 70; Chenoweth v. Office of City Clerk, 131 Cal.App.2d 498, 280 P.2d 858; Nelson v. Dept. of Corrections, 110 Cal.App.2d 331, 242 P.2d 906; Genser v. State Personnel Board, supra, 112 Cal......
-
Ehman v. Moore
...on appeal. (Firemen's Ins. Co. v. Indermill (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 339, 341-342, 6 Cal.Rptr. 469; Chenoweth v. Office of City Clerk (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 498, 500, 280 P.2d 858.) Matter which does not appear in the record may not be considered by an appellate court upon the suggestion of cou......