Daley v. Bd. Of Police Com'rs Of East Hartford

• Decision Date: 26 June 1947
• Citation: Daley v. Bd. Of Police Com'rs Of East Hartford, 133 Conn. 716, 54 A.2d 501 (Conn. 1947)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: DALEY v. BOARD OF POLICE COM'RS OF EAST HARTFORD et al.

133 Conn. 716

54 A.2d 501

DALEY

v.BOARD OF POLICE COM'RS OF EAST HARTFORD et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 26, 1947.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hartford County; Johnson and Bordon, Judges.

Application by Charles F. Daley in the nature of an appeal from an order of the Board of Police Commissioners of East Hartford discharging applicant from the position of police patrolman. From a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas for defendants after the case was transferred to such court from the Superior Court and a plea in abatement was sustained, plaintiff appeals.

No error.

William S. Gordon, Jr., of Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).

Ralph C. Dixon, Corp. counsel, of Hartford, for appellees (defendants).

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.

BROWN, Judge.

On September 12, 1946, the plaintiff, a patrolman in the East Hartford police department, was notified by the defendant board of police commissioners that they had voted on September 9, 1946, that he be discharged from the department on charges preferred against him. Claiming that this action by the board was unwarranted, the plaintiff on September 18, 1946, made ‘application to the Superior Court, now in session, in the nature of an appeal’ from the order discharging him, asking that the court revoke it as of the date it was adopted. On that same day two true and attested copies of the original appeal were served upon the town clerk of East Hartford and the original was returned to court.

This appeal to the Superior Court was taken under § 23 of the East Hartford charter. 20 Spec. Laws, 1113, 1127. This provides: ‘Any officer of the department who shall have been removed by the board may make application to the superior court within and for Hartford county * * * in the nature of an appeal from such order of the board, which application shall be made returnable not more than six nor less than three days from the date of such order, and a copy thereof shall be served upon the town clerk at least forty-eight hours before the time to which it shall have been made returnable. Said court * * *, having given such further notice as [it] may deem necessary, shall forthwith hear such application and may approve, modify or revoke such order * * *.’ The defendants pleaded in abatement on the ground, among others, that a copy of the appeal was not served upon the town clerk within the prescribed forty-eight hours before the time to which it was made returnable. The appeal was transferred, pursuant to § 810f of the 1941 Supplement to the General Statutes, to the Court of Common Pleas, where the plaintiff filed an answer to the defendants' plea in abatement admitting that the copy of the appeal was not so served but denying that the defendants were prejudiced thereby. The only material issue raised was whether the fact so admitted entitled the defendants to judgment on the plea. The plaintiff's claim is that this provision as to service upon the town clerk is directory merely and not mandatory, and that, since a citation issued by the Superior Court directing that another copy be served upon the town clerk seven days before hearing was complied with, the purpose of notice to him was fulfilled and the defendants could not have been prejudiced.

Notice is not, however, the sole purpose of the requirement in question. In fact, that this is not necessarily its essential purpose is indicated by the ensuing provision...