BRODIE ET AL.
v.
YOUNG ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the police tribunals had full jurisdiction and sufficient evidence supported their decision, making further review unnecessary.
Appellants, police officers, were found guilty by a Trial Board on several charges and their appeal to the Commissioners was affirmed. They subsequent…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
CHARGE IV. Conduct prejudicial to the reputation, good order and discipline of the Police Force, in violation of Chapter 39, Section 22, Paragraph (o) of the Police Manual.
SPECIFICATION 1: That on the 14th day of October, 1939, the said Hubert E. Brodie and Leo Murray were members of the. Metropolitan Police Department, assigned to duty as detective sergeants in the First Precinct. In that assignment it was their duty to take action in the prevention and detection of crime. They went on the date aforesaid to the premises 905% G Street, N. W., in which an unlawful enterprise was being conducted, to-wit, the operation of a gaming table and the taking of bets on horse racing and numbers, at or about 2 p. m., and having driven up to the curb in front of the said premises, proceeded to attract, or cause to be attracted, the attention of one Carl T. Updyke, who came out of said premises and handed them, or either of them, a sum of money, lawful currency of the United States of America, which sum of money was given to and received by the said Hubert E. Brodie and Leo Murray, or either of them, in an attempt to procure, or tend to procure, or bring about the failure of the said Hubert E. Brodie and Leo Murray, or either of them, to report or prevent a violation of law or to take proper police action in connection with the setting up and operation of a gaming table and the taking of bets on horse racing and numbers, which business was carried on in the premises aforesaid by the said Carl T. Updyke, contrary to the laws of the District of Columbia then and there in force.
See Degge v. Hitchcock, 35 App.D.C. 218, affirmed 229 U.S. 162, 170, 172, 33 S.Ct. 639, 57 L.Ed. 1135; Harris v. Barber, 129 U.S. 366, 369, 9 S.Ct. 314, 32 L.Ed. 697; Northern Pac. Ry. v. I. C. C., 57 App.D.C. 318, 320, 23 F. 2d 221, 223, certiorari denied, 275 U.S. 572, 48 S.Ct. 205, 72 L.Ed. 433.
Cf. United States ex rel. Arant v. Lane, 47 App.D.C. 336, 339; Rules III and XI, Criminal Appeals Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, 18 U.S.C.A. following section 688, 292 U.S. 660, 662, 665, 54 S.Ct. XXXVII, XXXIX; Rule 10, General Rules of United States Court of Appeals, 72 App.D.C. 414; 28 U.S.C.A. § 350.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Silver v. McCAMEY, 221 F.2d 873 (D.C. Cir. 1955)
Authorities Cited
- Degge v. Hitchcock, 229 U.S. 162 (U.S. 1913)
- Harris v. Barber, 129 U.S. 366 (U.S. 1889)
- N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 23 F.2d 221 (D.C. Cir. 1927)
- Wenstrand v. United States, 275 U.S. 572 (U.S. 1927)
- Bonded Prods. Corp. v. The Andrew Jergens Co., 275 U.S. 572 (U.S. 1928)