People ex rel. Leet v. Heins

After a fair'friaí'üp’oh'chárges preferred' liy the chief' inspector the State Architect''decided tbafthe, relator,'"a"ve'terari'bf the 'Civil'Waf; was iricbmpbtéht and'guilty o’f misconduct ‘in His 'pbsition'as'huildmg’''iúspectór¡'‘and removed him‘therefrom. ‘‘A careful examination’‘of - the‘evidence "convinces'iis that théré" was competeht proof of tte’facts‘necessary 'to be proved to’'áuthbriiíe the making of the determination,, and.we.aré riot able to say that there‘'was'’su,cli a preponderance of proof"against the'existence of'any 8f 'those Tacts''thatlifthe determination was‘based upon the“verdict'of a 'jiify' ailrmmg'tire 'existence thereof, we would be justified, in setting,it aside as against the weight’of the evidence. That'bemg so', wé'íeel ebmpélíed',' under"section "3140‘'bf'the'Obde’of Crol1; Procedure""- which ‘governs bur 'bearing ‘of " the ‘natter, "tb‘'corifinri’tíie d'eierminatibni"' Determination -unanimously confirmed, with fifty'dollars, hosts and disbúrsemériis tó respondent...... . ...... ' ......... -L"'