City of Anderson v. Hadley, 18154
| Decision Date | 13 December 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 18154,18154 |
| Citation | 102 N.E.2d 385,122 Ind.App. 8 |
| Parties | CITY OF ANDERSON v. HADLEY. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Philip B. O'Neill, City Atty., Philip F. Welsh, Anderson, for appellant.
Johnson, Stewart & Austin, Anderson, for appellee.
For several years prior to December 5, 1949 appellee was a member of the Police Department of the City of Anderson, Indiana. On the 9th day of November, 1949, charges were filed against said appellee with the Board of Safety of said City. The charges against him were as follows:
'You Are Hereby Notified That as a police officer, you are charged with the following: '1. Disobedience of orders.
'2. Conduct injurious to the public peace or welfare. '3. Conduct unbecoming an officer.
'Under the item of 'disobedience of orders' you are charged with making use of unnecessary force and violence in dealing with one William Crawford, on the 7th day of November, 1949, at about 9:30 P.M., both in the home of said named person and in the city building of Anderson, Indiana. (Reference is made to Rule No. 32 of the 'Rules and Regulations governing the Police Department of the city of Anderson.)
'Also you are charged with assault and assault and battery upon the person of the above named Crawford, without cause, which conduct is alleged to be injuries to the public peace and welfare, and is also alleged to be unbecoming a police officer in the city of Anderson.
'Also, under the item of 'conduct unbecoming an officer' you are charged that on November 8, 1949, after an informal appearance by you before the Board of Safety that you addressed three colored persons who were disinterested in the matter, as 'black sons of bitches'.
'You Are Hereby Further Noticied to appear before the Board of Safety of the city of Anderson, Indiana, at its offices in the City Building on Monday, November 14th, 1949, at 7:30 o'clock P.M., to explain or defend against the above charges.'
After a hearing on said charges the Board of Safety discharged appellee from the police force of said city.
Pursuant to § 48-6105, Burns' 1946 Replacement appellee brought this action in the Madison Circuit Court to set aside and vacate the Board's order of dismissal and for his reinstatement as a member of said Police Department. After a hearing that court entered its judgment modifying the order of the Board of Safety to a suspension for five days and reinstatement of appellee as a member of the Police Department. From that judgment appellant has appealed to this court. The assignment of error here is the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial. The specifications of that motion presented to us are, that the decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law.
In the trial court and here one of the principal contentions of appellee is that he did not receive a fair and impartial trial before the Board which he asserts was prejudiced against him and refused to consider material testimony which was introduced at the hearing before the Board. In support of this contention he asserts that at an informal meeting of the Board held November 8th before charges were filed against him, the chairman of the Board, with the acquiescence of other members of the Board, told him he was fired and discharged. He further says another member of the Board, after the meeting of November 8th, told a fellow police officer--'We are going to fire Hadley'.
In the case of State ex rel. Szweda v. Davies et al., 1926, 198 Ind. 30, 38, 152 N.E. 174, 176, in rejecting the same contention made here, the Supreme Court said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Mishawaka v. Stewart
...its own evaluation of whether there was substantial evidence to support the decision of the Commission. In City of Anderson v. Hadley, 122 Ind.App. 8, 102 N.E.2d 385, 387 (1951), the rule appears as 'Where there is substantial evidence before the board to sustain its action, the trial court......
-
Pope v. Marion County Sheriff's Merit Bd., 2--173A23
...for that of the administrative body. City of Evansville v. Nelson (1964), 245 Ind. 430, 199 N.E.2d 703; City of Anderson v. Hadley (1951), 122 Ind.App. 8, 102 N.E.2d 385. The trial court may not change or modify the disciplinary action taken by the Board without a showing that such action w......
-
Ely v. City of Montpelier
...and capricious ruling by that administrative board. City of New Albany v. Whiteman (1968) Ind., 234 N.E.2d 646; City of Anderson v. Hadley (1951) 122 Ind.App. 8, 102 N.E.2d 385. On the judicial review in the Blackford Circuit Court, the appellant produced no evidence which would support his......
-
Mobley v. City of Evansville
...or change the order of the Board unless the Board's action was tainted with fraud, capriciousness or illegality. City of Anderson v. Hadley, 1951, 122 Ind.App. 8, 102 N.E.2d 385; City of Elkhart v. Minser, 1937, 211 Ind. 20, 5 N.E.2d 501. If the Board's order was a reasonable one, we must u......