Watkins v. Civil Service Commission of City of Chicago
Decision Date | 20 September 1955 |
Docket Number | Gen. No. 46504 |
Citation | 129 N.E.2d 254,7 Ill.App.2d 140 |
Parties | Rupert C. WATKINS, Appellee, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF The CITY OF CHICAGO, Stephen E. Hurley, President, and Albert W. Williams, Member of the Civil Service Commission of the City of Chicago, Appellants. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Michael F. Ryan, Chicago, for appellee.
John J. Mortimer, Corp. Counsel, Chicago. L. Louis Karton, Head of Appeals and Review Division, Chicago, Arthur Magid, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Chicago, of counsel, for appellants.
Suit was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County under the Administrative Review Act to review an order of the Civil Service Commission finding the plaintiff, a patrolman of the Chicago police department, guilty of conduct unbecoming a police officer and ordering him discharged. The trial court entered a final judgment setting aside the finding and decision of the Civil Service Commission. From such judgment this appeal is taken.
The defendants' theory is that the evidence before the Commission clearly established that the plaintiff was guilty of the charges filed against him before the Civil Service Commission that he failed and neglected to perform his duty as a police officer in that he permitted a prisoner to escape. The plaintiff's theory is that the finding of the Civil Service Commission is against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the discharge of the plaintiff was without cause.
There is very little controversy as to the facts. It appears from the record that the plaintiff, a patrolman in the police department of the City of Chicago, at about 11:50 p. m. on October 9, 1953 was ordered by his superior officer to guard a prisoner, one Jones, at the County Hospital from midnight until 8:00 a. m. October 10th. Jones had been shot during a holdup attempt and was in a bed in a ward at the County Hospital. The plaintiff knew at the time that Jones had previously escaped under similar circumstances and had been recaptured. Another prisoner, one Carroll, also wounded, was in the same ward as Jones. Jones and Carroll were in beds in a ward about 160 feet long, 60 feet wide, containing 39 to 45 beds arranged across from each other along opposite walls. At the end of the ward farthest from the corridor entrance there was a door leading to a fire escape. The entrance door from the corridor is six feet wide, and the corridor itself is 10 or 12 feet wide. Jones was in the fourth bed along the east wall, near the door to the fire escape. The bed occupied by Carroll, the other prisoner, was about 60 feet away from the bed occupied by Jones, and a person located ate one of the beds could not see the other. A screen had been placed about the bed of one of the other patients and was so placed that it covered the fire escape door, and, according to the testimony it also obscured the view of the prisoner Jones's bed from the corridor. The ward in which the prisoners were confined was a cancer ward and some of the patients were in the terminal stages of the disease. All the shades in the ward were pulled down either completely or partially, the lights were all out except the fire light, and the visibility was bad. On order to inspect the prisoners a flashlight was used. Carroll was handcuffed to his bed, while Jones's arms and legs were encased in leather shackles.
Plaintiff had been appointed to the police department on March 22, 1953. At the time of the occurrence he was specifically assigned to guard Jones. Police officers Johnson and Anderson, who were under Captain Kells of the Chicago police department, had been assigned to guard Carroll. Captain Kells testified that on October 8th he had assigned Officer Johnson to guard Jones as well. Sergeant Lescher testified that Johnson had previously been assigned to guard Carroll and that on October 8th Captain Kells, by special order, ordered Johnson to guard Jones as well and that he (Lescher) read this order to both Johnson and Anderson; that he assigned Anderson also to guard Jones and at the time told Johnson: The sergeant also testified that he did not know about the third man being there, referring to the plaintiff, Officer Watkins.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nolting v. Civil Service Commission of City of Chicago
...findings and the real basis for the court's decision was that the court considered the punishment too severe. In Watkins v. Civil Service Commission, Ill.App., 129 N.E.2d 254, there was little controversy over the facts. The court simply disagreed with the Commission as to the duties and re......
-
Samter v. Department of Public Welfare
...7 Ill.App.2d 122, 129 N.E.2d 245; Martin v. Civil Service Commission, 7 Ill.App.2d 128, 129 N.E.2d 248; Watkins v. Civil Service Commission, 7 Ill.App.2d 140, 129 N.E.2d 254; Nolting v. Civil Service Commission, 7 Ill.App.2d 147, 129 N.E.2d 236; and McCaffery v. Civil Service Board, etc., 7......
- Martin v. Civil Service Commission of City of Chicago