Coffey v. Way

JAMISON, J.,

pro

tem.

These proceedings for writs of mandate were brought by plaintiffs to compel defendants, in their official capacity, as the mayor and city council of the city of Eureka, to abstain from refusing to permit plaintiffs to perform their duties as policemen of the said city of Eureka, and to abstain from refusing to permit them the use, enjoyment and emoluments of said offices. Upon the hearing of the said matters judgments were rendered for defendants, and from these judgments plaintiffs have appealed. The plaintiff Harry E. Abers having dismissed his appeal, the cases of plaintiffs. Coffey and Ward were consolidated for the purposes of this appeal.

Appellants were duly appointed and acting policemen of the said city of Eureka, and on Saturday, February

2,

1929, at about the hour of 3 o’clock P. M. of that day, a special

[45]

meeting of the said city council was held, and an ordinance was passed removing appellants from said offices as policemen of said city, upon the ground that such removal was for the improvement of the public service. This removal was made without notice to appellants and without a hearing.

Appellants contend that they should have been given the opportunity of being heard before the city council passed the order ousting them.

The city of Eureka is governed under a freeholders

’

charter adopted by the people and approved by the legislature in 1895, Session Acts 1895, page 355. Section 113 of the charter provides that: ‘ ‘ The policemen shall be appointed by the mayor, by and with the consent of the council, and shall hold office during good behavior, unless removed for cause or for the improvement of the public service, as in this charter provided.” Section 43, subdivision 15 of the charter provides that the council shall have power to pass ordinances ‘‘to try and remove from office appointees against whom charges have been preferred; and to remove without the