State v. Bright
Decision Date | 21 December 1909 |
Citation | 123 S.W. 1057 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. McENTEE et al. v. BRIGHT et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
In Banc. Prohibition by the State, on the relation of P. J. McEntee and others, against H. L. Bright and others. Provisional writ made permanent, and final writ ordered to be issued.
G. M. Pritchett and W. R. Robertson, for relators. Frank L. Forlow and Mooneyham, Shepherd & Crane, for respondents.
This is an original proceeding in prohibition. Relators are the mayor, all the city councilmen, except one, and the city attorney of Webb City, Jasper county, Mo., a city of the third class. Respondents are Henry L. Bright, judge of division No. 1 of the circuit court of Jasper county, Mo., Joseph H. McNeill, marshal of Webb City, and Joseph H. Williams, a councilman of said city, who refused to join in this proceeding.
The history of the case, gathered from the facts pleaded in this action, is about as follows: On April 26, 1909, McEntee, the mayor of Webb City, suspended from office the said McNeill, marshal of said city, for reasons, as in his order stated: "For the reasons that he has been guilty of willful violation of official obligations, culpable official negligence, dereliction of duty, conduct inconsistent with his official character and duty and official incompetency, as is more specifically and fully set out in said charges accompanying this order." Accompanying this order of suspension, which order was duly signed by the mayor, there are 57 specific charges made by the mayor. The charges are thus headed: "Charges Against J. H McNeill as Marshal of Webb City, Jasper County, Mo. I, P. J. McEntee, as mayor of said city of Webb City, Jasper county, Mo., in support of the above suspension of said J. H. McNeill as marshal of said city, and as cause for his removal from office, charge that said J. H. McNeill as marshal of said city is guilty of willful violation of his official obligations; culpable negligence and dereliction of duty; of conduct inconsistent with his official character and duty; and of official incompetency as follows, to wit:" Then follow the 57 specific charges, which cover nearly all imaginable derelictions of duty that could be charged to a city marshal, including a number of fines which had been collected and not accounted for, as well as the collection of fines under color of his office in several cases wherein there had been no proceedings against the parties. Further details are not required at this point. The charges of the mayor thus closed:
These charges and order of suspension were presented to the city council on April 26, 1909; the said McNeill having been previously served with copies thereof. At said date McNeill and his attorneys appeared before the council, and time in which to file answers to the charges was requested, and, in compliance with said request, the council adjourned to May, 4, 1909. On May 3d McNeill made a report of fines, or parts of fines, which had been collected in the sum of $112.85, which fines, the report says, were in the hands of a deputy marshal and had not been reported to him. May 4th the council met pursuant to adjournment and resolved itself into a court of impeachment; McEntee being elected president, and L. O. Walker, clerk of said court, and the oath of office being administered to all of them by the circuit clerk of the county. McNeill and his counsel were present and filed an answer to the charges. The witnesses for the city were called and sworn, and by consent the court of impeachment adjourned to May 5th. On May 5th the mayor filed a reply to the answer of the marshal, and testimony was heard. Different hearings were then had on May 7th, 12th, 13th, and 14th; McNeill and his counsel being present at all the dates and requesting adjournments at times. On May 14th McNeill and his counsel, after offering numerous witnesses, requested an adjournment to May 17, 1909, which request was granted.
On May 17th the respondent Bright in vacation of court issued upon the application of McNeill the following order, omitting the caption: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Amour Packing Co.
...are in the attitude of having answered over, which effects an abandonment of their demurrers. State ex rel. v. Bright, 224 Mo. 514, 123 S. W. 1057, 135 Am. St. Rep. 552, 20 Ann. Cas. 955. If, therefore, the informations were not sufficient, measured by the rule applicable to this class of c......
-
State ex rel. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. v. Russell
...jurisdiction. State ex rel. v. Aloe, 152 Mo. 466, 54 S.W. 494; State ex rel. v. Williams, 221 Mo. 227, 120 S.W. 740; State ex rel. v. Bright, 224 Mo. 514, 123 S.W. 1057; State ex rel. Natl. Refining Co. v. Seehorn, 344 Mo. 547, 127 S.W. (2d) Victor Packman and Henry D. Espy for respondent; ......
-
Leonard v. Willcox, 179.
...note. 111 Am. St. Rep. 965, 966. The rule is not rigid and arbitrary, but one of discretion only. State v. Bright, 224 Mo. 514, 123 S. W. 1057, 135 Am. St. Rep. 552, 558, 559, 20 Ann. Cas. 955; Bice v. Boothsville Tel. Co., 62 W. Va. 521, 59 S. E. 501, 125 Am. St. Rep. 989, 13 Ann. Cas. 104......
-
State ex rel. Muth v. Buzard
...ex rel. v. Hartmann, 330 Mo. 386, 51 S.W. (2d) 22; State ex rel. Moberly v. Sevier, 337 Mo. 1174, 88 S.W. (2d) 154; State ex rel. v. Bright, 224 Mo. 514, 123 S.W. 1057; State ex rel. v. Oliver, 163 Mo. 679, 64 S.W. 128; State ex rel. v. Aloe, 152 Mo. 466, 54 S.W. 494; State ex rel. v. Cook,......