Joyce v. City of Chicago

• Citation: 216 Ill. 466,75 N.E. 184
• Parties: JOYCE v. CITY OF CHICAGO et al.
• Decision Date: 23 June 1905
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

216 Ill. 466

75 N.E. 184

JOYCE

v.CITY OF CHICAGO et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 23, 1905.

Error to Appellate Court, First District.

Certiorari by Peter J. Joyce against Robert Lindblom and others. From a judgment of the Appellate Court affirming a judgment of the circuit court quashing the writ, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Rehearing denied October 11, 1905.

A. D. Gash and James H. Hooper, for plaintiff in error.

Colin C. H. Fyffe (Edgar Bronson Tolman, Corp. Counsel, of counsel), for defendants in error.

The plaintiff in error filed a petition in the circuit court of Cook county against Robert Lindblom, John W. Ela, and Joseph O. Powell, composing the civil service commission of the city of Chicago, for a common-law writ of certiorari to test the legality of his removal by said commission as lieutenant of police upon the police force of the city of Chicago. The writ was issued, and, as a return thereto, the defendants in error filed a certified copy of the record kept by them as such commission, showing the examination, promotion, and appointment of plaintiff in error to the office of lieutenant of police of said city; that a charge in writing was filed in their office against him as such lieutenant of police by the general superintendent of police of said city, charging him with having made a false official report, and with conduct unbecoming a police officer; that a time and place were fixed by the commission for a hearing upon said charge; that the plaintiff in error was summoned to appear for trial before said commission, and was served with a copy of said charge; that he appeared before said commission, in person and by attorney, at the time and place fixed for his trial; that witnesses were sworn and examined, and upon due consideration the plaintiff in error was found guilty of the said charge, and was removed from the office of lieutenant of police, by said commission. Upon the return being filed, the defendants in error moved the court to quash the writ, which motion was allowed and the writ quashed, and, the judgment of the circuit court in quashing said writ having been affirmed by the Appellate Court for the First District, the record has been brought to this court by writ of error for further review.

HAND, J. (after stating the facts).

It is first contended that the commission was without jurisdiction to try plaintiff in error. Section 12 of an act entitled ‘An act to regulate the civil service of cities' (Hurd's Rev. St. 1903, p. 381, c. 24, par. 457), which is in force in the city of Chicago, provides for the trial and removal from office of officers in the classified civil service for cause, upon a written charge, and after an opportunity to be heard in their defense has been given them. A charge in writing was filed against the plaintiff in error. He was notified of the time and place fixed for his trial, was served with a copy of the charge upon which he was to be tried, and appeared in person and by attorney before the commission, and was fully heard in his own defense, and was convicted and removed from office. The commission was given jurisdiction of the subject-matter by the statute, and had jurisdiction of the plaintiff in error by service of summons, and we fail to see wherein the commission was lacking in jurisdiction to hear and determine his case.

It is next contended that the circuit court erred in rejecting proper evidence offered upon behalf of plaintiff in error. The rule is well settled in this state that the purpose of the common-law writ of certiorari, which writ issues in certain cases from a superior to an inferior court or tribunal when no method of reviewing the proceedings of such inferior court or tribunal is given by appeal or otherwise, is to bring before the court granting the writ the record of such inferior court or tribunal for inspection and review, and that the only questions which can be determined by that court are, did the inferior court or tribunal have jurisdiction to act, and, in acting, did it exceed its jurisdiction or fail to proceed according to the essential requirements of law? and that, on the return of the writ being made by filing the record in court, the trial is had on the record alone. It being inadmissible to form issues of fact or to hear or consider evidence relative to questions involved upon the trial of the original proceeding or heard upon that trial (Donahue v. County of Will, 100 Ill. 94;Blair v. Sennott, 134 Ill. 78, 24 N. E. 969;Smith v. Commissioners of Highways, 150 Ill. 385, 36 N. E. 967;Drainage Commissioners v. Volke, 163 Ill. 243, 45 N. E. 415;Scheiwe v. Holz, 168 Ill. 432, 48 N. E. 65;People v. Lindblom, 182 Ill. 241, 55 N. E. 358), the court did not err in declining to hear evidence aliunde the record, and properly decided the case upon the face of the record filed as a return to the writ.

It is further contended that the offense with which the plaintiff in error was charged pertained to misconduct on his part while acting as a notary public, and not to misconduct on his part while acting as a lieutenant of police, and that, although he may be guilty of the charge, it formed no proper basis for his discharge from office as a lieutenant of police by the commission. The charge is that the plaintiff in error, in connection with Patrolman Tracy and Sergeant Cramer, two other officers upon the police force in the city of Chicago, rendered a false and fraudulent ‘messenger's expense account’ to the Secretary of State for the return of Joseph Larkin, a fugitive from justice, from Cleveland, Ohio, to the city of Chicago, whereby they obtained from the state $48.80 in excess of the amount allowed by law for such service. Said section 12 of the city civil service act provides that an officer in the classified civil service shall not be removed except for cause. The commission held the obtaining of said fund unlawfully from the state was cause for the removal of the plaintiff in error as a lieutenant of police. We are of the opinion they were right in so holding, and do not agree with the contention that no cause is sufficient for the removal of an officer in the...