144 A.D. 339 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1911
The following is the opinion delivered at Special Term:'
This is an application for a writ of prohibition to the board of city magistrates of the second division of the city of New York, who, on August 24, 1910, were about to try charges against the relator, an Italian court interpreter, for being irregular in attendance upon said Magistrates’ Courts.
In 1891 Mr. Conti was appointed interpreter for the Brooklyn Police Courts by- the Brooklyn common council,, by virtue of chapter 623, Laws of 1815,
The question is now raised as to his status in the Magistrates’ Courts created by chapter 659, Laws of 1910, which declares that all interpreters (with deputy clerks, stenographers, etc.) .may be removed by the boards of magistrates “after an opportunity of making an explanation.” (§ 103.) The relator, however,, urges that this power of removal after explanation (which follows the. wording of section 22 of the Civil Service Law
The final repealing clause (§ 120) does not mention this act of 1875, although it may be considered to come within the general reference to acts inconsistent or in conflict therewith. The
In creating the new courts, the Legislature had power to determine the manner of appointment and the method of removal ■— so far-as not in conflict with the.civil service provisions of the Constitution
See, also, Laws of 1888, chap. 583, tit. 2, § 22.— [Rep.
See Consol. Laws, chap. 7 (Laws of 1909, chap. 15), §22, as amd. by Laws of 1910, chap. 264.— [Rep.
Became a law June 25, 1910.— [Rep.
[See Const. art. 5, § 9.— [Rep.