Case ID: njl_86/html/0674-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JARED BARHITE, APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWN OF WEST NEW YORK, RESPONDENT.
    Submitted July 6, 1914
    Decided October 16, 1914.
    On appeal-from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
    “The proceedings really sought- to be set aside are those taken in June, 1910, by which the prosecutor was suspended as supervising principal. Obviously, the great delay bars the prosecutor unless this case differs from the usual one. Glori v. Board of Police Commissioners, 72 N. J. L. 131. It is said the rule does not apply since the prosecutor seeks only to set aside the order of the state hoard of education made in July, 1913. This, however, is not the case. The writ brings up the resolution of June, 1910, and this is necessary in order to secure for the prosecutor the right he claims. Even if this were not so, we ought to look beyond the mere form. If we do so, we cannot fail to perceive that the prosecutor waited two years and a half before proceeding to vindicate his rights. Meantime, the defendant had incurred other obligations. It is no answer to sav that his delay was due to his acquiescence in a ruling of the former state superintendent, which, has since been reversed by the state board of education. He acquiesced of his own choice. It is no answer to say that the ruling of the state superintendent was not made in his case but in that of other teachers. The ruling was applicable to his case, and he assumed and acted upon its correctness for two years and a half. It is true that the state board was wrong in saying that he, had had his day in court; he had not had it in a strict technical sense of the words as used by lawyers, and he has lost, his right not by an adjudication against him, but by laches. The result is the same.
    “'The writ should be dismissed.”
    For the appellant, Roe, Runyon cf; Auienreith.
    
    
      Por the respondent, Francis II. McCauley.
    
    Por the state board oí education, John W. Wescoii.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance-^The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison. Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Mintubn, TKalisch, Black, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Tériiune, ITeppenheimer, Williams, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.