Purdie v. Detroit Police Dep't Trial Bd., 108.

• Decision Date: 27 June 1947
• Docket Number: No. 108.,108.
• Parties: PURDIE v. DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT TRIAL BOARD.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

318 Mich. 430

28 N.W.2d 283

PURDIE

v.DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT TRIAL BOARD.

No. 108.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 27, 1947.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Sherman D. callender, judge.

Mandamus by James Purdie against Detroit Police Department Trial Board to compel a rehearing. From an order granting writ of mandamus, Trial Board appeals.

Order reversed and cause remanded with instructions.

Before the Entire Bench.

William E. Dowling, Corp. Counsel, and Nathaniel H. Goldstick, Asst. Corp. Counsel, both of Detroit, for appellant.

Buckingham, Piggins & Rehn, of Detroit, for appellee.

REID, Justice.

Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Wayne circuit court against the Detroit police department trial board, defendant, to compel a rehearing which had been denied plaintiff. The trial court granted the writ. Defendant board appeals.

Plaintiff was a sergeant in the Detroit police department; in 1940 he was indicted by the so-called Ferguson grand jury, on a charge of conspiracy to obstruct justice, and was tried in 1942 and found not guilty by the verdict of the jury in a trial in which Albert Needham and Joseph McCarty were witnesses. Subsequently and on December 16, 1942, he was tried before the Detroit police department trial board on a charge of conduct unbecoming an officer. At the police board trial Needham and McCarty testified that they had illegally paid money to Purdie while he was a police officer. On March 30, 1943, as a result of the trial before said board, plaintiff was dismissed from the Detroit police department.

Plaintiff in his petition for a rehearing filed September 27, 1945, claims that the two witnesses Needham and McCarty now say that their testimony was a mistake and plaintiff claims that if they were now put on the stand they would give correct testimony as a result of which the defendant trial board would reverse the former decision of the trial board suspending plaintiff as a member of the department.

It appears from the exhibits attached to the answer and return of defendant board that the board denied a rehearing for the following reasons:

‘1. Because the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan has heretofore ruled that James Purdie had a fair and legal trial before the police trial board of the Detroit police department and upheld the order of dismissal.

‘2. Because there is nothing contained in the petition for rehearing to warrant or justify the granting of the petition for rehearing of the case.’

The ruling of this court above referred to is in the case of Aller v. Detroit Police Department Trial Board, 309 Mich. 382, 384, 15 N.W.2d 676, 677, decided September 11, 1944, in which we say: ‘Thirty-three police officers of the city of Detroit, who had been indicted by the so-called one-man grand jury conducted by Circuit Judge Homer Ferguson, were subsequently tried together with John Roxborough and Elmer Ryan. * * * They were either found not guilty or the information which had been filed against them was dismissed on motion. Immediately after the conclusion of the criminal trials, written charges were filed with the Superintendent of Police, charging each of them with conduct unbecoming an officer.’

The name of Purdie, plaintiff in the case at bar, appears at page 388 of 309 Mich., at page 678 of 15 N.W.2d, in the Aller case, supra, and in that case as to Purdie, our finding was in favor of the defendant trial board as to the fairness of the trial.

It is fairly clear, therefore, that the defendant trial board in considering plaintiff's petition for rehearing in the case at bar had in mind the trial and review of the trial in the Aller case, supra. It further appears from the answer and return of the defendant board that the defendant board had before it the testimony taken before the trial board of the department at plaintiff's trial which began December 16, 1942, and culminated in the order of dismissal of March 30, 1943. Two of the former members of the trial board are no longer members of the Detroit police department.

The following further appears in the answer and return of the defendant board: ‘The record of the proceedings before the police trial board include the sworn testimony given by the said Albert Needham and Joseph McCarty before the Honorable Homer Ferguson, circuit court judge, sitting as the examining magistrate, and before the Honorable Earl Pugsley,...