Opinions of the City Attorney of San Francisco 1936
The book Opinions of the City Attorney of San Francisco 1936 was written by author Here you can read free online of Opinions of the City Attorney of San Francisco 1936 book, rate and share your impressions in comments. If you don't know what to write, just answer the question: Why is Opinions of the City Attorney of San Francisco 1936 a good or bad book?
Where can I read Opinions of the City Attorney of San Francisco 1936 for free?
In our eReader you can find the full English version of the book. Read Opinions of the City Attorney of San Francisco 1936 Online - link to read the book on full screen. Our eReader also allows you to upload and read Pdf, Txt, ePub and fb2 books. In the Mini eReder on the page below you can quickly view all pages of the book - Read Book Opinions of the City Attorney of San Francisco 1936
In our eReader you can find the full English version of the book. Read Opinions of the City Attorney of San Francisco 1936 Online - link to read the book on full screen. Our eReader also allows you to upload and read Pdf, Txt, ePub and fb2 books. In the Mini eReder on the page below you can quickly view all pages of the book - Read Book Opinions of the City Attorney of San Francisco 1936
What reading level is Opinions of the City Attorney of San Francisco 1936 book?
To quickly assess the difficulty of the text, read a short excerpt:
601, 109 S.W.
758.
"The strict legal rules which apply to the disquali- fication of a judge sitting in a court cannot be applied to police commissionei's, as the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Hew York said in PeopDs ex rel. Lleyer v.
Roosevelt, supra. In that case it appears that former President Roosevelt was a member of the board of police commissioners of the city of ^ewYork, and its president.
The offense for which the policeman was upon trial was committed in the presence of M...r. Roosevelt and of Commiss- ioner Andre^ 3 * or " e °I ^is colleagues, by whose testimony the facts were established. The right of Comr-iissioners Roosevelt and Andrews to hear and dotermine the gtd.lt of the accused was challenged* The court saids ''he oolice commissioners are the sole tribunal to hear complaints for violation of the rules and discipline of the police force, and the action of a majority of them is necessary to punish offenses and enforce discipline. V.iiere thai ■ case, even a personal interest in the result is not sufficient to disqualify a member of the tribunal from sitting, if his presence is necessary to constitute the court* * • -«- •» As any ill conduct on the part of the policeman which is detected by one of the commissioners can only be punished by a vote of the board, of which he is a necessa:- «r, it follows that in some cases, unless the commissi, oner wno observed the charges remained qualified to vote upon the question of the guiltyoi' the person accused of them, and to decide upon his punishment, violations of the rule would necessarily go unpunished, and thus it wouM occur that the more vigilant and active the commissioners werein the per- formance of their duties, and in the inspection of the force, the more likely it would be that they would not be able to punish the members of the force for misbehavior.
What to read after Opinions of the City Attorney of San Francisco 1936?
You can find similar books in the "Read Also" column, or choose other free books by San Francisco (Calif.). City Attorney's Office to read onlineMoreLess
To quickly assess the difficulty of the text, read a short excerpt:
601, 109 S.W.
758.
"The strict legal rules which apply to the disquali- fication of a judge sitting in a court cannot be applied to police commissionei's, as the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Hew York said in PeopDs ex rel. Lleyer v.
Roosevelt, supra. In that case it appears that former President Roosevelt was a member of the board of police commissioners of the city of ^ewYork, and its president.
The offense for which the policeman was upon trial was committed in the presence of M...r. Roosevelt and of Commiss- ioner Andre^ 3 * or " e °I ^is colleagues, by whose testimony the facts were established. The right of Comr-iissioners Roosevelt and Andrews to hear and dotermine the gtd.lt of the accused was challenged* The court saids ''he oolice commissioners are the sole tribunal to hear complaints for violation of the rules and discipline of the police force, and the action of a majority of them is necessary to punish offenses and enforce discipline. V.iiere thai ■ case, even a personal interest in the result is not sufficient to disqualify a member of the tribunal from sitting, if his presence is necessary to constitute the court* * • -«- •» As any ill conduct on the part of the policeman which is detected by one of the commissioners can only be punished by a vote of the board, of which he is a necessa:- «r, it follows that in some cases, unless the commissi, oner wno observed the charges remained qualified to vote upon the question of the guiltyoi' the person accused of them, and to decide upon his punishment, violations of the rule would necessarily go unpunished, and thus it wouM occur that the more vigilant and active the commissioners werein the per- formance of their duties, and in the inspection of the force, the more likely it would be that they would not be able to punish the members of the force for misbehavior.
What to read after Opinions of the City Attorney of San Francisco 1936?
You can find similar books in the "Read Also" column, or choose other free books by San Francisco (Calif.). City Attorney's Office to read onlineMoreLess
Write Review:
Guest
Read Also
8 / 10
8 / 10
User Reviews: