Gibbs v. Board of Aldermen
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 75 — PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION ' APPEAD PROM TEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT, COMMON PLEAS DIVISION. 1. The appellant can not be removed from his office under the general charge that he was guilty of offenses, infamous in their na- . ture; the words “upon charges preferred by the taayor,” must ■mean charges of official misconduct.
Read the full summary
Case 75 — PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION ' APPEAD PROM TEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT, COMMON PLEAS DIVISION. 1. The appellant can not be removed from his office under the general charge that he was guilty of offenses, infamous in their na- . ture; the words “upon charges preferred by the taayor,” must ■mean charges of official misconduct. (Com. v. Williams, 79 Ky., 47; Com. v. Barry, Hard., 238; Com. v. Chambers, 1 J. J. M., 160; Tompert v. Lithgow, 1 Bush, 180.) 2. The board of aldermen has no power under the provisons of section 2781 to remove a park commissioner, as- the manner of and cause…
1Opinion of the Court
CHIEF-JUSTICE PRYOR
delivered the opinion oe the court.
This case involves a question of jurisdiction only. The appellant, Gibbs, was a member of the board of park commissioners, and, for causes alleged, was cited to appear before the board of aldermen upon a proceeding to remove him from office. The jurisdiction to remove the appellant is found in section 2781 of the Kentucky Statutes, and is as follows: “Executive and ministerial officers, unless otherwise provided in this act, shall be removable by the board of aldermen sitting as a court, under oath, or affirmation, upon charges preferred…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. HillenbrandCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1895
3Cited by3 opinions
- Holliday v. FieldsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1925
- Arbogast v. Weber, MayorCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1933
- Fugate v. WestonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1931