State ex rel. Campbell v. Police Comm'rs

• Decision Date: 17 June 1884
• Citation: 16 Mo.App. 48
• Parties: THE STATE OF MISSOURI EX REL. J. W. CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. POLICE COMMISSIONERS ET AL., Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

16 Mo.App. 48

THE STATE OF MISSOURI EX REL. J. W. CAMPBELL, Appellant,

v.POLICE COMMISSIONERS ET AL., Respondents.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Jun. 17, 1884.

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, BARCLAY, J.

Affirmed.

JOHN G. CHANDLER and C. F. JOY, for the appellant.

A. R. TAYLOR and J. M. GLOVER, for the respondents.

LEWIS, P. J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an application to the circuit court for a writ of prohibition. The petition shows that the relator is chief of police, and the defendants constitute the board of police commissioners of the city of St. Louis. That the commissioners are authorized by law to suspend from the police force any member thereof, after trial and due hearing, and upon proper cause and charges, and not otherwise. They are further authorized by law to make rules for such trials, and for the government of the police; and, in pursuance of such authority, have made certain rules now in force, including rule 167, which is copied into the petition. That defendants Lutz and Caruth have filed with said board charges and specifications against the relator, alleging that he is guilty of language and conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, and of violations of said rule 167. That the relator was present with his counsel and witnesses at a meeting of the board ready for a hearing on said charges, when the board sat with closed doors, and in secret session; and, without the knowledge or consent of the relator, passed resolutions providing for the taking of an appeal to the supreme court from a certain judgment of the St. Louis Court of Appeals, and for the postponing of a hearing of the said charges against the relator, until after a decision should be made by the supreme court on said appeal. That the said charges on their face, if true, embrace matters merely of disrespect or misconduct towards the defendants Lutz and Caruth, who have a personal and direct interest in sustaining the said charges, and are therefore imcompetent to sit in judgment thereon, or in any matter directly or indirectly connected therewith, or involved therein. That defendant Lutz has offered in the board for adoption a resolution as follows: “““ Resolved, That pending the charges heretofore preferred against him by members of this board, John W. Campbell be suspended as chief of police, and that during such suspension, B. P. Taaffe discharge the duties of chief, and the said John W. Campbell be and he is hereby ordered to turn over all the property and effects of the police department in his possession, to said B. P. Taaffe.” That if passed and enforced the said resolution would operate to punish the relator, and deprive him of his office without cause and without a hearing, and that, in the present condition of business in the supreme court, said appeal will not be determined until after the expiration of the relator's legal term of office; that the relator has protested in writing to the defendants against their proposed action, and requested them to desist from the same, but without effect. The petitioner prays for a writ of prohibition to prohibit the defendants from proceeding upon the said resolution, and the...