Riley v. Crawford

• Decision Date: 11 December 1917
• Citation: 165 N.W. 345,181 Iowa 1219
• Parties: W. L. RILEY, Appellant, v. ED. CRAWFORD et al., Appellees
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

165 N.W. 345

181 Iowa 1219

W. L. RILEY, Appellant, v. ED. CRAWFORD et al., Appellees

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

December 11, 1917

Appeal from Polk District Court.--W. S. AYRES, Judge.

Affirmed.

A. L Steele, for appellant.

H. W Byers, Guy Miller and Thomas Watters, Jr., for appellees.

WEAVER J. GAYNOR, C. J., PRESTON and STEVENS, JJ., concur.

OPINION

THE opinion states the case.--Affirmed.

WEAVER J.

This is a proceeding in certiorari begun in the district court of Polk County to review the action of the defendants Ed. Crawford, as chief of police of the city of Des Moines, W. F. Mitchell, as superintendent of public safety of said city, and H. H. Stipp, C. W. Hummell and Jay Tone, constituting the Civil Service Commission of said city, in discharging the plaintiff from his position as a member of the police force.

The petition alleges that plaintiff was, for more than 12 years, a duly appointed, commissioned and acting member of said force, paying a portion of his salary into the Police Pension Fund, in which he had acquired a vested interest; that, on December 10, 1914, he was orally notified by the night captain of the force that he was discharged, and his further services dispensed with; that he was informed that there had been filed with the chief of police an order, signed by the superintendent of public safety, purporting to have been made under instructions from the civil service commission, discharging from service 10 members of the police force, including the plaintiff; that he thereupon, at once and in due time, appealed from the order of the superintendent of public safety to the civil service commission; that the defendants wrongfully refused to make or specify written charges in justification of the order discharging the plaintiff; that he received oral notice that the commission would meet to consider his case on the evening of January 12, 1915; that he appeared at the time and place mentioned, but still no written charge or accusation was made against him, though he did receive information that he was accused of protecting vice,--but the charge was untrue and no evidence was offered sustaining it; that thereupon the commission entered upon its record a dismissal of his appeal.

In all these matters, he alleges that the commission exceeded its jurisdiction and acted illegally and without jurisdiction or authority, and he asks that such proceedings may be reviewed, and that the order discharging him from the service be annulled.

The writ was issued, and, responding thereto, the defendants caused the record of its proceedings to be certified to the district court. They admit that the civil service commission of the city did, on November 30, 1914, pass a resolution discharging plaintiff from the police force, and that thereafter plaintiff appealed, and his appeal was dismissed. They admit that plaintiff was appointed to a place on the police force, that he served for a period of years thereon, and contributed to the Police Pension Fund as alleged; but deny all other allegations made.

These issues were submitted to the trial court, together with the record returned to that court by the defendants and a transcript of testimony taken upon the hearing of the appeal before the commission. Upon consideration of the entire record, the trial court found that it was without jurisdiction to pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence, and dismissed the proceeding. Plaintiff appeals.

While counsel have more or less extensively discussed the proposition whether certiorari will lie to review the action of the civil service board in dismissing a police officer, we think that question is not presented by this appeal. The court...