
    The People ex rel. Richard Fox v. Henry L. Hayden, Com’r.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department
    
    
      Filed July 18, 1890.)
    
    Municipal corporations — Boiler inspectors — Removal.
    Boiler inspectors in the city of Brooklyn are not members of the police force, and cannot demand a trial before their removal.
    Certiorari to review proceedings removing relator from office as an inspector of boilers in the city of Brooklyn.
    The relator was appointed a boiler inspector in the Brooklyn police department April 10, 1879, and remained in office until February 28, 1890, when he was removed from his office without cause and without trial. Ho charges were presented against him. He claims that he is a member of the police force, and entitled, to the powers and privileges of such members, among which is that of remaining in office during good behavior and until removed for cáuse after trial.
    
      Sidney Williams, for relator; F. A. McGloskey, for resp’t.
   Dykman, J.

This is a proceeding by certiorari to bring before-the court for review the action of the commissioner of police of the-city of Brooklyn in the removal of the relator from the position of boiler inspector in that city.

The relator received his appointment under and in pursuance of the provisions of § 52, title 11 of chapter 863 of the Laws of 1873, for the purpose of carrying into execution and practical operation the provisions of the • three preceding sections respecting the location and operation of steam boilers in the city of Brooklyn.

These provisions, and the mode of appointment of the boiler inspectors were somewhat modified by § 5-4 of title 11, of the Laws of 1888, but the office and the powers and duties of the officer remained the same.

That it was not the intention of the legislature to annex these boiler inspectors to the police force, and make them members thereof, is manifest from the provisions of § 4 of title 11 of the law of 1888, where officers and persons who shall constitute the police force of the city are specifically named without mention of boiler inspectors.

It is true they are invested with the same powers, and granted the same privileges as members of the police force, and the possession of such powers and privileges was, doubtless, essential to-the successful discharge of the duties of their position.

But the bestowment upon boiler inspectors of the powers of police officers is far from constituting them members of the police force.

We find nothing in the law to indicate a design to make an addition to the police force by the appointment of boiler inspectors,. or to do more than secure safety in the use of steam by a proper system of inspection. ■

Such inspectors are, therefore, not within the protection provided for members of the police force, and cannot demand a trial before their removal.

The proceedings of the commissioner should, therefore, be confirmed.

Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J., concur.  