McLaughlin v. Quinn
Decision Date | 01 July 1925 |
Parties | McLAUGHLIN v. QUINN, Mayor, et al. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Middlesex County.
Petition for writ of mandamus by Frederick H. McLaughlin against Edward W. Quinn, as Mayor of Cambridge, and another, to compel respondents to reinstate petitioner as patrolman in the police department of the City of Cambridge. Case reported on pleadings and agreed statement of facts after order for dismissal. Petition dismissed.F. Hunt and G. A. McLaughlin, both of Boston, for petitioner.
P. J. Nelligan, of Boston, for defendants.
This is a petition for a writ of mandamus, brought to compel the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as a patrolman in the police department of the city of Cambridge, from which he was removed March 27, 1924, by the respondent McBride as chief of police of that city. Hereinafter McBride will be referred to as the respondent. The question whether the petitioner received seasonable notice of his suspension is immaterial, as this proceeding is not brought to reinstate him because of such suspension, but on account of his removal from office.
The parties have agreed upon certain facts, from which it appears that the petitioner on January 20, 1924, was a patrolman on the Cambridge police force; that the respondent, previous to that date, had been appointed chief of the police department of that city, which appointment was confirmed by the city council, and by virtue thereof he has since acted in that capacity; that the respondent Quinn was and still is mayor of the city; that on January 23, 1924, the respondent received a written report from one Ginty, a lieutenant in the police department, to the effect that the petitioner, on the night of January 20, 1924, was intoxicated; that on January 23 the respondent suspended him from duty and notice in writing of such suspension was delivered to him on the same date; that on January 24 the respondent received formal charges of intoxication and arrest therefor against the petitioner, made by one Leahy, captain of the petitioner's district; that on February 1, 1924, the respondent appointed three police officers of the department as a trial board, and also notified the petitioner of the charges and that a hearing would be held thereon February 6, 1924; that thereafter, on account of illness of the petitioner, the hearing was adjourned from time to time until March 17, 1924, on which date he filed with the board written objections to the jurisdiction of the board to hear charges against him; that no further action was taken by it. On March 19, 1924, the respondent notified the petitioner that he contemplated removing him as a police officer for reasons specifically given to him in writing and appointed March 26, 1924, for a hearing. At the time and place fixed for the hearing the petitioner appeared by counsel and objected in writing to the jurisdiction of the respondent to hear charges against him, but the latter proceeded with the hearing. On March 27, 1924, the respondent made his decision, finding the petitioner guilty upon the charges, and removed him from his position as police officer and on the same day notice in writing, as required by law, was given to him of such decision. It is also agreed that since January 3, 1916, the city of Cambridge has been governed by the provisions of plan B, St. 1915, c. 267, now G. L. c. 43. A copy (in part) of an ordinance of the city, entitled ‘An ordinance abolishing the department of public safety and establishing a fire department and a police department,’ adopted June 4, 1917, as amended, is annexed to the agreed statement of facts.
By St. 1912, c. 611, the police and fire departments of the city of Cambridge were consolidated into what was called the department of public safety. That statute provided for the appointment by the mayor of a commissioner of public safety, and prescribed his duties relative to these two departments of the municipality. Under St. 1915, c. 267, entitled ‘An act to simplify the revision of city charters,’ the city of Cambridge since January 3, 1916, has been governed by the provisions of plan B of that act, which is now embodied in G. L. c. 43. Under section 5 of the original act, now section 5 of the G. L. c. 43, it is provided that the powers and duties of the officers and employees of any city adopting any of the plans provided for in the act shall remain as constituted at the time of the adoption of such plan, but the city council or other legislative body may at any time by ordinance, consistent with general laws, reorganize, consolidate or abolish departments, in whole or in part and establish new departments. Acting under the authority conferred by this section, the city council by the ordinance hereinbefore referred to abolished the department of public safety and created police and fire departments. Section 4 of the ordinance is as follows:
‘The police department shall be under the charge of a chief of police who shall be the head of said department.’
The effect of the adoption of the ordinance was to abolish the office of commissioner of public safety provided for in St. 1912, c. 611, and create in its place police and fire departments, with a chief of police as the head of the former. G. L. c. 43, § 5; St. 1891, c. 364, § 8, St. 1907, c. 565, § 2; Ellis v. Civil Service Commissioners, 229 Mass. 147, 151, 118 N. E. 231;Gordon v. Chief of Police of Cambridge, 244 Mass. 491, 493, 138 N. E. 905.
St. 1923, c. 242,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Martignette v. Sagamore Mfg. Co.
... ... of error in the findings or determinations of administrative or executive officers or boards, whose findings are, by statute, final, McLaughlin v. Mayor of Cambridge, 253 Mass. 193, 199-200, 148 N.E. 458; Pacific Mills v. Director of Div. of Employment Security, 322 Mass. 345, 346, 77 N.E.2d ... ...
- Moore v. Election Comm'rs of Cambridge
-
Moore v. Election Com'rs of Cambridge
... ... J. A. DeGuglielmo, ... L. Moore with him,) ... for the petitioner ... G. A. McLaughlin ... H. Davison, (L ... Wheeler, Jr., J. F ... Farr, & J. M. Capron with them,) for the respondents ... ...
-
MacKenzie v. School Committee of Ipswich
... ... Swan v. Justices of the Superior Court, 222 Mass. 542, 544-545, 111 N.E. 386; McLaughlin v. Mayor of Cambridge, 253 Mass. 193, 199-200, 148 N.E. 458; Whitney v. Judge of District Court of North Berkshire, 271 Mass. 448, 458, 171 N.E. 648; ... ...