Enright v. Williams

STURTEVANT, J.

Claiming to be a member of thepolice department of the city of Oakland, the plaintiff applied to the trial court for a writ of

mandamus

commanding the defendant as auditor to draw his warrant in payment of two salary claims. His application was denied. He made a motion for a new trial and the motion was denied and he has appealed from the judgment.

Plaintiff set forth a cause of action to recover two salary claims as a police officer. The defendant as auditor filed an answer denying that the plaintiff was a police officer during the period within which the alleged claims arose. He also set forth certain affirmative defenses. He pleaded the plaintiff’s discharge from the service on January 3, 1924—six years before the alleged claims for salary arose. He also pleaded several statutes of limitation. The court made findings sustaining the defendant’s claim that the plaintiff was discharged on January 3, 1924, and was not, thereafter, a member of the police department. If that finding was supported by the evidence, other points made in the briefs need not be discussed. The plaintiff vigorously contends that said finding is not supported. He claims that the civil service board duly adopted rules, one of which provided that when an employee is discharged he must be given notice thereof. 'Continuing the plaintiff claims he was not given any notice. The defendant replies that he was and that the court not only so found the fact to be but went further and

[362]

made a finding that the notice was in writing in the form of a letter which is set forth in the findings, as follows:

“January 3, 1924.

“Mr. Joseph M. Enright,

“Assistant Inspector of Police,

“Oakland Police Department,

"Oakland, California.

“Dear Sir:

“After analyzing the transcript of testimony of the preliminary hearing held at Martinez, Contra Costa County, California, December 4, 1923, in the matter of charges against you- and after careful consideration of the facts of the case and thorough discussion of the same with the Chief of Police, I have come to the conclusion that for the best interest of the Police Department you should be removed from your position therein.