The Sunday morning news. [volume] (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1886-1891, 1890-11-23
SUPREME COURT DICTA.
Full Text Of the Detective
Douglas and Roche
BTuggemann De-
cisions.
VERY LIKEAJUDICIAL ERROR
Judge Sender Seems to Have
Thought Douglas vas Re-
dueed 10 the Rank
of Roundsman.
VERYLIKEA JUDICIAL ERROR

/ cases or Detective George Douglas
| against the Police Commissioners of der
sey City and the election protest case Of
James Roche. who claimed that he was
deprived OF the Office of Director-at-
Large by fraud, that send you herewith
copies Of the two decisions. In the case Of
Douglas as the matter now stands. the
Police Commissioners must reinstate him
and not only pay ham one years salary
/ but also pay his costs In the suit II Is
expected, however, that other legal steps
Will De taken to prevent the reinstate-
ment of Douglas
In the case brought by Roche the suit
Is forever settled and Mr.. Bruggeman
will remain Director at Large, the frauds
| notwithstanding.
The following IS the decision in Doug
las CASE
NEW JERSEY SUPREME CouRT.
The estate GEORGE w. DoUGLAs.
Prosecutor
! The Mayor ana Aldermen OF Jersey City.
On certiorari TO The Board of Police
Commissioners OF jersey City. Collins
and w. u. Edwards for defendants.
Argued before Justices Van Syckel and
! Scudder
ScUDDER, j.:
There are two cases between the same
parties, bringing up two resolutions Of
| the Board Of Police Commissioners Of
Jersey CITY. The first dated Jnlv II
| 1850. BY which the prosecutor vas Dfit al,
| patrol duty ia the Fourth nres;xs.f the
second dated February IS. 1890 dismiss.
ing him from the services Of the police
force for wiIlful 1is0bed{enca Of orflers
The prosecutor had been a eefectfse an
| the police force Of Jersey CITY for ian
| years continuously prior to the time a.
! the resolution was PASSED putting I,jfn ~,
patrol duty.
/ As detective he was entitled "a rncaive
/ a compensation of 500 per month. fha
| salary Of pafroinaan was go "a ner
| month. Without anv notice 70 him az
hearing this first resolution was passea
and the resolution Ia his nav was made
The change involved more than the mere
transfer Of q policeman from ona fs1rx y,
/ another within fhose assi0red 70
/ the department. Of equal grade X
differed. therefore. from tbe case of4
/ McManf1s " Newark N Vraon. 775
4 where the duties were different. hat fhe
/ comp engatlon the same. ana reser,3 i,ies
IN principle Michaels '. Newark, 81 vi,
1853, where there were uIfferent finties
i and decreased pay. 4 resolI,tion fhera-
/ fore passed without notice 10 him or al
opportunity for hearing is OF no validity
under the act Of 1850. p. as. Supp. Rev.
/ SIS.
change in his condition second resolu-
ton was passed ordering him TO procure
UNIFORM sucn as was worn Dy patrol
men inns oroer ne refused 90 Obey 1t
involved tne purchase OF Uniform at his
own expense when assigned 10 duty at a
reduced compensation BY rule 176. of
the Police department OF Jersey City,
detectives were required 70 perform duty
IN cltlzens clothing lntA ne was le-
ga.ly removed or transferred from that
service he could not be required to Dur-
chase or wear the uniform prescribed for
roupqsmen, aitnougn notice was given
10 him of the proceedings for his ais
missal Tor disooedience OF orders in not
procuring the uniform There was no
legal aulhority 10 remove him from the
service Tor TINS cause when the change
mad been made Oy tue prior resolution
without notice to nm or hearing So
long as he remained detective he Was
Justified under the rule OF the DEPART
ment 20 refuse 60 purchase and wear
UNIFORM contrary 70 the established rule
controlling the dress OF detective officers
botn resolutions Will De set aside and
judgments entered Tor prosecution, With
Costs
THE RoCHE-BRUGGEMASN CONTEST.
Inc following Is the decision render
ed:-
NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT
The State Elk Rel. JAMES ROCHE
vs..
AUGUST ID. BRUGGEMANN.
On rule. 70 show cause why an iuforrna-
| ton in the nature of a quo warranto
should not issue against the defendant 10
| enquire by what authority he holds and
| exercises The Office of Director at Large
| Of tine Board OF Chosen Freeholders OF
| the County of Hudson. John Griffin and
| w. NJ. Dougherty. attorneys for relator:
| Vreedan burph and Garrsfson ATTORNEY
| for incumbe1t