State v. Kennelly

• Decision Date: 24 July 1903
• Citation: 75 Conn. 704,55 A. 555
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. WILLIAMS v. KENNELLY.

55 A. 555

75 Conn. 704

STATE ex rel. WILLIAMS

v. KENNELLY.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 24, 1903.

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Gager, Judge.

Quo warranto by the state, on the relation of Charles E. Williams, against Patrick Kennelly. Respondent answered; relator replied; respondent demurred to the replication. The court sustained the demurrer, and, on relator's refusal to make further reply, rendered judgment for the respondent. Relator appeals. Affirmed.

Robert E. De Forest and William H. Cornley, for appellant.

Elmore S. Banks and William A. Redden, for appellee.

HAMERSLEY, J. This is an information in the nature of a quo warranto, filed by the state's attorney at the relation of Charles E. Williams, charging the respondent, Patrick Kennelly, with usurping the office of director of public works of the city of Bridgeport The information alleges that the mayor of Bridgeport, under and in pursuance of the charter of that city, on May 26, 1900, appointed the relator director of public works for the term of four years from June 1, 1900; that the relator duly qualified and entered upon the duties of the office; and that the respondent has since May 19, 1902, illegally usurped and still continues to usurp said office. The answer admits the appointment of the relator on May 26, 1900, and that the respondent now occupies and exercises said office, and alleges that he exercises said office by virtue of an appointment thereto by the mayor of Bridgeport, and further alleges the following facts, namely: The said mayor summoned the relator to appear before him on April 30, 1902, to answer to charges of Incompetency and negligence in performing the duties of his office, and particularly to the following charges, to wit: That he had been and still was interested in the compensation paid for stone furnished the city, during his term of office, by the Williams & Dewhirst Company; that he employed one Dewhirst as assistant and subordinate, who was interested in the compensation so paid for stone furnished by said Williams & Dewhirst Company, knowing that he was so interested; that he negligently permitted the stone so purchased of the Williams & Dewhirst Company to be furnished the city, without having any representative of the city, other than an officer of said company, to supervise the measurement of the stone, and without any method or system by which the quantity of stone so furnished could be accurately deter mined, and had thereby caused the city to be defrauded and damaged; that in answer to said summons the relator appeared before the mayor with counsel, and heard and examined the witnesses who testified in support of the charges, and offered such evidence and arguments as he desired; that on May 19, 1902, and after said hearing, the mayor found that said charges were true, and that sufficient cause existed for the removal of the relator from office, and did therefore remove the relator from his said office; and that afterwards, and on May 19, 1902, the mayor appointed the respondent to fill the vacancy created in the office of director of public works by said removal of the relator. The replication admits the summons and hearing as alleged in the answer, and admits that, after said hearing, the mayor did assume to remove the relator from office, setting forth his reasons therefor as alleged in the answer, and did assume to appoint the respondent to said office as alleged, and alleges that the removal the mayor thus assumed to make is illegal and void, because, first, no evidence was produced on said hearing to legally substantiate the charges, and no legal cause for the relator's removal was in fact shown on said hearing; second, the mayor did not remove the relator for any legal cause whatever, but removed him solely for political reasons; third, said hearing was not a fair and lawful one, because the mayor, before and after the hearing, in the absence of the relator, consulted with and was advised and Influenced by the attorneys who represented the prosecution of said charges, and the persons interested in having the relator removed for political reasons only. The respondent demurred to this replication, and the trial court sustained the demurrer. The relator claims that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer, and this is the only question raised by the appeal.

The charter of the city of Bridgeport, as revised in 1895 (12 Sp. ...