Case ID: nj-misc_8/html/0633-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Oubiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WILMAR COMPANY, PROSECUTOR, v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF CAMDEN, LESLIE H. EWING, DIRECTOR, AND FRED W. GEORGE, CLERK, RESPONDENTS. WILMAR COMPANY, PROSECUTOR, v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF CAMDEN, LESLIE H. EWING, DIRECTOR, AND FRED W. GEORGE, CLERK, CENTRAL AIRPORT, INCORPORATED, AND CENTRAL AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, RESPONDENTS. SIGMUND SCHOENAGLE, PROSECUTOR, v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF CAMDEN, LESLIE H. EWING, DIRECTOR, AND FRED W. GEORGE, CLERK, RESPONDENTS. SIGMUND SCHOENAGLE, PROSECUTOR, v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF CAMDEN, LESLIE H. EWING, DIRECTOR, AND FRED W. GEORGE, CLERK; CENTRAL AIRPORT, INCORPORATED, AND CENTRAL AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, RESPONDENTS.
    Submitted January 31, 1930
    Decided August 2, 1930.
    Before Justices Teenohabd, Lloyd and Case.
    For the prosecutor Wilmar Company, Joseph H. Carr.
    
    For the prosecutor Sigmund Schoenagle, Aaron Heine.
    
    For the respondent board of chosen freeholders of the county of Camden, Walter 8. Keoion.
    
    
      Eor the respondents Central Airport, Incorporated, and Central Airport Development Company, Edward L. Katzenbach and Albert E. Scheflin.
    
   Pee Oubiam.

The petitions in these cases are for writs of certiorari to determine the validity of the vacation by the board of chosen freeholders of the county of Camden of a portion of Browning road in that county. Various reasons are urged for the allowance of the writs, and as the facts • presented in the petitions and proofs submitted under the rule to show cause allowed by this court establish that there are legally debatable questions presented, the writs will be allowed.