
    In the Matter of the Application of Henry Wagner for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus, Appellant, v. Charles H. T. Collis, Commissioner of the Department of Public Works of the City of New York, Respondent.
    
      Bemoval of an exempt fireman—when it need not be for cause shown and, after a/ hearing— chapter 577 of 1802 is not applicable to a detailed, laborer.
    
    Chapter 577 of the Laws of 1892, providing that certain persons named in that, act can only be removed for cause shown and after a hearing had, applies only to those persons who hold positions by appointment and receive a salary from, the city of Hew York.
    An exempt fireman employed by the department of public works of the city of Hew York as a detailed laborer, who is removed because his services are no' longer required, no one being appointed in his place, does not come within the provisions of the statute.
    ■ Appeal by Henry Wagner from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 7th day of February,. 1896, denying his motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to reinstate him in the position in the department of public works from which he had been dismissed.
    
      
      Louis J. Grant, for the appellant.
    
      Terence Farley, for the respondent.
   Barrett, J.:

• It is not claimed that exempt firemen are entitled to preference in employment upon public works, as are honorably discharged soldiers ¡and sailors. . The claim is, that, being in such employment, they can only be removed for cause shown after a hearing had under chapter 577 of the Laws of 1892. But this' act relates only to persons holding positions, by appointment receiving a salary from the city. It has been held that a day laborer does not come within this provision. (Meyers v. The Mayor, 69 Hun, 291.) In the case at bar - the. petitioner was. not even a regular laborer; he was simply a detailed laborer; he was removed- because his service as such detailed laborer was not required, and no one was, appointed in his place.

The mandamüs was properly refused, and the order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.- •

Van Brunt, P. J., Patterson, O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, with costs,  