Thompson v. City and County of Denver

• Decision Date: 01 May 1916
• Docket Number: 8577.
• Citation: 158 P. 309,61 Colo. 470
• Parties: THOMPSON v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

158 P. 309

61 Colo. 470

THOMPSON v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER.

No. 8577.

Supreme Court of Colorado

May 1, 1916

Rehearing Denied July 3, 1916.

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; J. W. Sheafor Judge.

Action by James Thompson against the City and County of Denver. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Robert H. Kane, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.

James A. Marsh and William R. Kennedy, both of Denver, for defendant in error.

BAILEY J.

James Thompson, plaintiff below and plaintiff in error here, was one of the police operators of the City and County of Denver for three years prior to the 1st day of February, 1910, and on or about that date was suspended upon charges filed against him by the Fire and Police Board. On March 14th 1910, a hearing was had before the Board, the charges sustained, and plaintiff discharged from the service. Thompson took that decision on appeal to the City Civil Service Commission, where the matter rested for over two years. About the 31st day of May, 1912, upon request of the Fire and Police Board, the Commission forthwith ordered that the appeal be sustained and Thompson reinstated, which was accordingly done by formal order of the Board on June 1st 1912. Upon reinstatement he served only fifteen days, when the same charges were filed against him by newly installed members of the Fire and Police Board, resulting in his second discharge from the service. Thereupon this action was brought to recover damages, consisting of the salary which plaintiff was thus deprived of earning during the period of discharge, and for the period from June 1st to June 15th after reinstatement, less what he actually earned in that time in other pursuits, the amount of the claim being $1,815.97 with interest. The trial court rendered judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $46.86, the amount of salary from the date of reinstatement to the date of removal, but refused to award anything for the period of discharge, on the ground that another had been paid the salary for the same period one Kaiser having occupied the position meanwhile, discharged the duties and received the salary therefor.

Prior to the time the charges were made plaintiff received his appointment by examination in the regular way, served his probationary period of six months and then became a permanent appointee, in conformity with the provisions of Section 200 of the charter of the municipality, concerning appointments in the classified service, which reads as follows:

'Every original appointment in the classified service shall be for six months, at the end of which time, if the conduct and capacity of the person appointed have been satisfactory, he shall be permanently appointed; otherwise he shall be out of the service.'

The duties of police operator, as outlined in the brief of counsel for defendant in error, are to receive reports from policemen on the beats within the municipality at a telephone switchboard, make records of the same, receive calls for the patrol wagon, and generally to exercise the duties of a central operator with reference to the police telephone system. Section 65 of the city charter provides that the police force shall be composed of the chief of police and such subordinate officers, policemen and other employees to be appointed by the board as may be necessary, etc. Section 153 thereof provides that all...