Case ID: njl_101/html/0401-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JAMES HAILES, APPELLANT, v. MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF KEARNY, RESPONDENT.
    Submitted February 9, 1925
    — Decided March 16, 1925.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per cu-riam was filed:
    “The order of the mayor and council, dismissing the prosecutor, seems to be supported by the testimony, and since that conclusion presents a question of fact, this court will not review the testimony, even if it were possible to reach a different conclusion.
    “The question of law raised by the contention of the prosecutor that since the disorderly conduct of the officer took place while he was not engaged in active duty, the municipality could not legally make it the basis for disciplinary action, has been determined otherwise by this court in the ease of Herbert v. Atlantic City, 87 N. J. L. 98.
    “The result is therefore that the proceedings of the defendant dismissing the prosecutor, and brought up by this writ, will be affirmed, with costs.”
    For the appellant, Richard Doherty.
    
    For the respondent, John H. Cooper.
    
   Pee Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Teen-chard, Parees, Kalis ch, Black, Katzenbaci-i, Lloyd, WniTE, Gardner, Yan Buskirk, Clark, McGlennow, Kays, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.