Case ID: njl_97/html/0074-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bergex, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THOMAS MURRAY, RELATOR, v. COUNTY OF HUDSON, RESPONDENT.
    Submitted March 23, 1922
    Decided May 6, 1922.
    The statute entitled “An act relating to the salaries of the guards and keepers of jails, penitentiaries and workhouses of counties of the first class” (Pamph. L. 1920, p. 333) is unconstitutional, for the title covers both male and female guards while the body of the act limits its application to males.
    
      On rule io show cause why mandamus should not issue.
    Before Justices Trexciiabd, Bergex and Mixtubx.
    For the relator, Macha y <& Machay.
    
    For the respondent, John J. Fallon.
    
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bergex, J.

The relator holds a rule to show cause why a peremptory or alternative writ of mandamiLs should not issue commanding the county of Hudson to forthwith pay to the relator, Murray, money which he claims to be due to him as one of the male guards and keepers of the Hudson county penitentiary, from the 15th day of April, 1920. He liases his claim upon the statute entitled “An act relating to the salaries of the guards and keepers of the jails, penitentiaries and workhouses of counties of the first class.” Pamph. L. 1920, p. 333. The first section of the act reads as follows: “The salaries of male guards and keepers of jails, penitentiaries and workhouses of counties of the first class shall be as follows.”

This rule should be discharged for the following reasons: First, it appears from the testimony taken that the county has no money appropriated to pay such salaries; second, the writ should not be directed to the county but to the disbursing officer; third, the act is unconstitutional, in that its title relates to salaries of all guards and keepers of jails, penitentiaries and workhouses, which would include both male and female guards, while the body of the act limits the salaries to male guards, which, is clearly not within the title; fourth, the act is special in limiting the salaries to a class of guards, and does not include all.

The rule to show cause will be discharged, with costs.