Casper v. Philadelphia

Citations

• 55 Pa. Super. 266
• 1913 Pa. Super. LEXIS 355

Syllabus

<p>Municipalities — Cities of the first class — Removal of policemen — Acts of June 1,1886, P. L. 87, and March 6, 1906, P. L. 88.</p> <p>1. Under the Acts of June 1,1885, P. L. 37, and March 5, 1906, P. L. 83, the method of removing a policeman of a city of the first class for misbehavior in office, is by specific charges made by the director of the department of public safety, or delivered to him, which charges are to be tried by a court composed of “persons belonging to the police or fire force equal or superior in official position, therein to the accused,” and it is the decision of this court which may authorize the director to fine, suspend or dismiss.</p> <p>2. Where a board of police inquiry recommends that an officer be reprimanded, and also recommends him to the mercy of the director of the department of public safety, the director has no power to dismiss the officer.</p> <p>3. The provision in the Act of June 1, 1885, P. L. 37, which forbids the employment of any person as a policeman who has been convicted of crime, relates only to the qualification of the person at the time of his appointment, and does not apply to an officer who has been convicted of an offense after his appointment. Such a conviction will not justify the director in dismissing the officer where dismissal has not been recommended by the trial board.</p> <p>4. A bill in equity to restrain the director from dismissing a policeman will not be dismissed by the appellate court after an answer filed in the court below, and a trial had on the merits without a demurrer. It is then too late to raise the question of want of jurisdiction.</p>