|
( The'following is a copy of Motion in regard to`the last- paragraph of Minutes on Charges file ;
<br />MOTION,
<br />I move that the charges against SIP. Riley Hinkle, Mayor, and AlbertM Long, member of the
<br />Board of Public Safety, of the City of South Bend* Indiana, preferred by Rudolph Ackerman, be j
<br />received, ordered placed on file, and adopted by zthis Council, and that the same be publicly
<br />heard by this Common Council at an adjourned meeting to be held on the 21st day of December,
<br />1931, at 7 :30 o'clock P/ M., at the 09uncil Chamber in -the City Hall of the City of South
<br />Bend, Indiana, and that a certified copy of said charges and of the, proceedings . of this
<br />Common Council, ,fixing the time and place for hearing the same, be-immed$iately served upon
<br />said We Riley Hinkle and Albert M. Long, by the Chief of Police of this Cfity, by delivering
<br />the same-to them-,in person or at their last and usual places of , residence#, , -and that due
<br />return.of such service be made according to law.' John :X 06' Hiss. Councilman: The Motion
<br />NaszAdvptzdzb1xtkex22uxot1 ' was passed by the Council.
<br />MOTION.
<br />h Move that this meeting be adjourned to December 21, 1931, at 7 :30 P. M.', for the
<br />purpose of hearing Sid
<br />the preferred charges against . Riley Hinkle, Mayor$ and Albert M. Long,
<br />member of the Board of. Public Safety.of this City.' Julius Altfeld, *Councilmana
<br />The Motion was passed by the Councils at 9:10 o'clock P.` M.'
<br />December 2�rd, 1931.' at- 7 :40 o'clock Pip'
<br />The Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, was again called to order by
<br />President Nelson under the last above mentioned date and time. All Members present.
<br />RETURN OF SERVICE.
<br />STATE OF INDIANA
<br />ST. JOSEPH COUNTY 3 SS:
<br />John Be" being duly Ao&f sworn,,, doth depose and say that he- is the duly qualified (�
<br />and acting Chief of Police of the. -City of'South Bend, Indiana; that he served a notice,
<br />certified as above and of which the above and foregoing is a true and complete copy, on We Rileyl
<br />Hinkle, Mayor of the City ofbSouth Bend, Indiana, and Albert M. Long,-.Member of the Board of
<br />Public Safety, of said City, by delivering one of the same to each of them, in person, on the
<br />15th day of December, 1931.'
<br />Further - affiant saith note" John B: Kuespert:
<br />Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15 day of December, 1931:' Wm.' P' Downes, Notary Public
<br />My Commissi @n expires Jan. 24 - 1934.' ( Notarial Seal)
<br />The report of the Return of Service was accepted by the Council and ordered to be placed on file.
<br />Motion carried:'
<br />In the matter of thecharges> filed- with the Council against Mayor Rillile and Mr.' Long,
<br />Member of the Board of Safety, Roland Obenchain, attorney for the Respondents, filed on behalf
<br />of saild Respondents separate and several mottion to quash the charges, which motion is in the
<br />words and figures, following:
<br />STATE OF INDIANA
<br />CITY OF SOUTH BEND,
<br />ST. JOSEPH COUNTY 11
<br />BEFORE THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND
<br />11 THE MATTER OF CHARGES
<br />AGAINST_', RILEY HINKLE -INMAYOR OF SEPARATE AND SEVERAL MOTIONS OF
<br />THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, DIANA SIP. RILEY HINKLE AND ALBERT M.
<br />azA ALBERT M. LONG, MBER OF T13E LONG TO QUASH CHARGES.
<br />BOARD OF PUBLIC SAFETY OF THE CITY OF
<br />SOUTH BEND, INDIANA.
<br />N' Riley Hinkle and Albert M. Long appear specially in the above entitled matter and for thi
<br />purpose of this motion only and arately and severally move that the common council of the
<br />city of South Bend quash the all #charges in the above entitled matter and dismiss said
<br />proceedings for each of the reasons following and which appear upon the face of the proceedings=,
<br />to —wit:,
<br />1*" purported adoption by the council of the alleged charges was not such adoption as is
<br />required by law in that the law requires that the council itself take under consideration
<br />complaints, make such investigation or inquisition as may be necessary to determine for itself
<br />that one or more lawful and sufficient grounds of complaint exist and that there exists a
<br />reasonable probability that on the trial thereof the charge can x be sustained by lavf ul proof,
<br />and that if both of these conditions are found to exist by the Council, then the council itself
<br />presents,, in substantially the same manner &Aq a grand jury „`the charges which it requires to be
<br />answered. The law does not contemplate that an officer of a city be required to answer an unswor3
<br />declaration of a non - member.`
<br />2 The ordinance expressly provfdes for written charges which shall have been "preferred
<br />and filed” by the common council or any committee thereof" The alleged charges in this case are
<br />unsworn declarations of an individual who is not even a member of the council and were not,
<br />"preferred and'. filed" by the council:
<br />3: If the word," adopt as used in the statute be of broader construction than Npreferred
<br />and filed" as used in -the ordinance, then this council has not by ordinance made provision for
<br />the trial and disposal of such charges as are here involved; namely, such as are preferred by sox
<br />one other than the common council or a committee thereof:
<br />Clarence Manion
<br />Roland Obenchain
<br />See page 120) Attorneys for movents.
<br />(
<br />
|