Norton v. Adams

• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: STINESS, C. J.
• Citation: Norton v. Adams, 24 R.I. 97, 52 A. 688 (R.I. 1902)
• Decision Date: 12 April 1902
• Parties: NORTON v. ADAMS.

52 A. 688

24 R.I. 97

NORTON

v. ADAMS.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

April 12, 1902.

Quo warranto on relation of George J. Norton against Rufus W. Adams. Heard on petition for writ Petition dismissed.

Argued before STINESS, C. J., and TILLINGHAST and ROGERS, JJ.

Franklin P. Owen, for petitioner.

John P. Beagan and William C. Bliss, for respondent.

STINESS, C. J. Pub. Laws, c. 964, in February, 1872, authorized the towns of Westerly and East Providence to provide for a day and night police. Accordingly an ordinance was passed by the town of East Providence, which provided: "The permanent police force of the town shall consist of a chief of police and such number of police constables as may be required by the laws of the state, the ordinances of the town," etc. "The officers of the police force shall consist of a chief of police," etc. "The chief of police shall be at the head of the police department and shall have precedence and entire control of the department, its officers and members, when engaged in the service of the town. He shall devote his entire time to the affairs of the town," etc. This officer was not a mere police constable, but a member of a paid force, similar to those in cities, and the office of chief of police was thereby made a new and distinct town office. His tenure of office is not that of police constables, who continue in office, "during the pleasure of the town council and no longer." Gen. Laws, c. 40, § 34. It must, therefore, be that of town officers, since no other term is fixed. Id. c. 39, § 19, fixes the term of such officers "until the next annual election of town officers, and thereafter until their successors shall be lawfully qualified to act; unless It is expressly provided to the contrary." Consequently the election of the respondent, Adams, in November, 1901, was according to this provision. But Pub. Laws, c. 964, cited above, gave to the town councils the right to remove all officers by them appointed, "for misconduct or incapacity, at any regular meeting." Acting under this authority, the record of a regular meeting of the town of East Providence, held April 2, 1902, shows the following entry, which the agreed statement of facts states was passed as a vote: "I hereby move that under section 2, chapter 964, of the state laws, relating to East Providence, Rufus W. Adams, by reason of incapacity due to increasing age and physical defect, be removed from the positions of police constable, chief of police," etc. In the same form the complainant was elected. Without doubt the intent of this informal record was to remove the respondent from his office. While, as we have stated, the term of office is until the next annual election, an officer may be removed for either of the causes set out in the statute. The respondent objects to this action, for want of charges and notice to the respondent and a hearing thereon. In some city charters, e. g., that of the city of Central Falls (Lowrey v. City of Central Falls, 23 R. I. 354, 50 Atl. 639), and that of Pawtucket (Reynolds v. City of Pawtucket, 23 R. I. 370, 50 Atl. 645) it is expressly provided that all removals of officers of the paid police department shall be "upon charges made in writing and of which the officer complained of shall have had notice in writing and an...