Laserfiche WebLink
( 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 />