Sullivan v. Martin

• Citation: 81 Conn. 585,71 A. 783
• Parties: SULLIVAN v. MARTIN, Mayor.
• Decision Date: 27 January 1909
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut

71 A. 783

81 Conn. 585

SULLIVAN

v. MARTIN, Mayor.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Jan. 27, 1909.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Joel H. Reed, Judge.

Application in the nature of an appeal by Jeremiah J. Sullivan from an order of James B. Martin, mayor of the city of New Haven, removing applicant from the office of police commissioner. There was a judgment affirming the order of the mayor, and applicant appeals. No error.

Richard H. Tyner and Howard C. Webb, for appellant.

Edward H. Rogers and Edward P. O'Meara, for appellee.

THAYER, J. New Haven has a "department of police service" which is under the management and control of a board of six police commissioners who are appointed by the mayor. The city charter (sections 12 and 213) gives the mayor power to remove from office any person appointed by him or by any of his predecessors "if, after a full bearing, he shall find that such officer is incompetent, or unfaithful, or that the requirements of the public service demand his removal." The defendant as mayor of the city, having first duly summoned the plaintiff to show cause why he should not be removed, after a full hearing, removed him from the office of police commissioner upon the ground that he was incompetent and unfaithful, and that the requirements of the public service demanded his removal, basing this finding upon the fact that the plaintiff while commissioner, in the presence of certain policemen, at an election held within the city, had peddled and offered ballots to voters within 75 feet of a polling place, thus violating the statutes of the state, and had thus demoralized the efficiency of the police department and its officers, and hindered said officers in the performance of their duties. The plaintiff in the superior court to which he appealed from the order of the mayor and in this court to which he appealed from the judgment of the superior court has assumed that the cause of his removal was his offense against the laws of the state, and has insisted that the mayor had no jurisdiction to find him guilty of such an offense, and that, if he had such jurisdiction, he was acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity while conducting the hearing and committed errors therein which rendered his finding and order illegal.

In Avery v. Studley, 74 Conn. 272, 282, 50 Atl. 752, we held that sections 12 and 213 of the New Haven charter provide a mode for exercising a power of removal incident to executive appointment, rather than one of a quasi-judicial nature to hear and determine official offenses punishable by forfeiture of office. The plaintiff's fundamental error is in his assumption that the mayor in the present case was attempting to exercise the latter, and not the former, power. He assumes this probably because his conduct as established by the evidence was such as to render him liable to punishment under the statutes of the state, and perhaps to forfeiture of office in a proceeding under sections 139 and 140 of the charter. But his conduct on that occasion was proven to show his incompetency and unfaithfulness in the office of commissioner, and not for the purpose of establishing a crime or his liability to a forfeiture of his office under sections 139 and 140. It appears from the finding and the charter and ordinances therein referred to that it is the duty of the department of police service to preserve the peace, good order, and security of the city. The board of police commissioners designate the officers and policemen of the department, and make all promotions of officers and members of the force, and have the ultimate power of suspending, removing, or reducing them in rank. They fix the pay of all members of the department except the superintendent. It is the duty of the individual members of the board to inform themselves of the fidelity and efficiency of every member of the force, and to report to the board in session any information which they may receive regarding the conduct of any officer, and to encourage and sustain every police officer in the faithful discharge of his duty. The board has the designation and selection of every polling place at all elections. It is the duty of the chief of the department to make and enforce rules to preserve the peace, enforce good order, and prevent persons who are not voting or waiting their turn to vote or engaged in conducting the election from congregating within 100 feet of the polling place. The department of police service and its police officers are thus under the control of and are subservient to the board of police commissioners. It being thus the individual duty of the plaintiff to inform himself of the efficiency of every member of the force and to encourage and sustain every police officer in the faithful performance of his duty, he failed in that duty, and his conduct at the voting place in the face of one of his subordinates...