The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1891-07-13

q 0tHL-s D-4INtttNu EFAIrs l9rElAAV+ VIZ
Board II Chosen Freehoiders OF Hudson
Couaty.
SYLLABUS
The act OF 1854. y. l35. respecting the
removal Of honorsbly discharged soldiers
from Offices aud positions does not pre-
vent the boua ide abolition Of an Office OF
position held by snch Incumbent
A person appointed by the Board of
F~reenOidcrs OF Hudson az machlnist aud
relieving engineer. at the sum OF 500 per
day, whose services were gas and steam
I fitting and relieving the regular en-
gineers at the county binding, and who
worked wherever sent by the Superin-
tendent, n who was paid for his time
OF actual service, is not within the terms
Of the act.
Board OF Chosen Freeholders OF Hudson
County Diminishing the prosecutor from
the employ OF the Botrd.
Argued nj February term, 1891, before
Justices Knapp aud Reed. X. b.. Sey-
mour and Norman l.. Rowe for the plain
TIFF in certiorari; John A. McGrath for de
fendant. Tue opinion OF the court was
delivered by Reed, J.
The Board OK Chosen F~reeholders Of
Hudson County on July 10, 1855. by a
resolution, appointed Benjamin Evans TO
the position OF m~achinest and relieving
engineer at the county institution. at the
rate of $3.50 per day, for one year or Until
his successor should be duly appointed
The Board on January 80, 1890, passed
another resolution 10 the pnrport, among
other things, that the position of machin-
ist at Snake Hin, held by Benjamin
Evaps, be abolished and the said Evans,
be dismissed from the employ and pay OF
the Board.
The prosecutor Is an houorably dis
charged soldier Of the Union Army, He
was dismissed without a hearing
He claims that bis dismissal c~ontravened
the provisions of an act in regard to
~honorably discharged Union soldiers.
Pamph. L., 1855, p. 1875.
That act provides that no person hold
ing q position in IN city or county in this
State, whose term OF Office is not now
fixed by law and receiving a salary from
such city. county or State, who is an hon
orally discharged soldier or sailor, nav-
ing served In the War Of the Rebellion,
shall be removed from such position, ex-
ceDt for good cause shown after a hear
ing. but such person shall hold his posi-
ton during good behavior Ind shall not
be removed for political reasons. l think
the Board possessed the power to abolish
the position or Office which IL had created,
assuming that the position was one with
in the meaning OF the act. Aside from
the provisions OF the above act there ex-
lists no reason to doubt tue ability OF the
Board TO do so. State ex rel, Adams VS..
Haines, is vr. 25; Greene vs.. hreeholders
of Hudson, 10 VT. 35S.
Nor IN my judgement is his power
abased by reason OF the terms of the act.
The statute was not designed for the
purpose OF perpetuating the existence OF
offices.
Whenever for economical reasons, or
any other reason arising from govern
mental policy, il may be thought wise TO
e~xtingulsh the Office o. position, the
power which treated can annul il. IL Is
a matter of course hat the exertion OF
the power to d~tsestabllsh must be ona
fide for its manifest that if II should
appear tina a formal act purp0rting to
abolish such an Office or position is only
a device for the purpase OF removing an
officer or employe. while the Office or
position PRACTICAL still remains in eXss-
tence, that such a subterfuge would be OF
ii avail
Ia the present cose nothing in the tes-
timony impearheS the object Of the
Board In passing the Lass resolution.
The evidence taken in the case is
meagre. No subsequent appointment of
any person TO the same place appears TO
have bean made. Tue work which
Evans did mas been distributed among
different persons. Whether these per-
sons were already in the service Of the
Board does not appear.
/ can gather nothing tangible from the
the testimony which displays any other
object to be attained by the Board than
an actual abolition OF the position in
question
But | am os the opinion that Evans did
not hold an Office or position which WIS
protected by the statute. think that his
services lacked that fixed and continuous
quality which the act contemplates- He
seems 70 nave had no right to employ
ineut excepting as ne was needed by the
SUPERINTENDENT.
The latter person says in his testimony
that Evans was employed sometimes at
one Institution aud sometimes at another,
and sometimes in the County Jail, and
whereTerever l sent him, and he was
paid by the dav Tor actual service at the
end of the month. 1t otherwise appears
that the work of Evans consisted 10 fix
ing steam and gas pipes and In relieving
the different engineers when they had
their day of.
His services seem more nearly to resem-
BILE those of the workman in case of the
State, Mclaughlin VS.. the Board of Pub
lie Works, than the duties OF the bridge
tender in the State, Lewis VS.. the same,
both Of which cases are reported In p, vr.
240.
The writ is dismissed with costs.
BENZ. F. LEE, Clerk.
Per \. LAwTHE, Deputy.
New Jersey Supreme Court, June Term,
1891, the State, Michael Clark V. the
Mayor, &C., Of Newark.
SYLLABUS.
l. The expenses OF erecting booths un-
der The election law OF 1890 is to be borne
equally by the county aud the city, be
| cause they are used both in city and
county elections.
2 The county must pay one-half the
expense OF ~canvassing and making the
| registry. and each city aud township one
half, because it is used in every election.
| The county is 10 pay the cost OF revising
the registry for the November election,
aud each township is 10 pay for revising
the registry for its spring election, and
the city is re pay for revising the registry
for its November election.
Argued at February Term, 1891, before
Justices Depae, Van Syckel aud Scudder.
p. W. STEVENS, E-q., for Plaintiff.
JOSEPH CoULr. Esq for Defendant.
The opinion VI the Court WAS delivered
by Van Syckel, ]. The question in this
case is. how shall the cost OF conducting
elections under the act passed in 1890
Laws Of 1890. q. 36Il be distributed be-
tween the county and its cities and tewn-
ships?
That act provides the mode for conduct
ing all elections ave town meetings,
which are still governed by the OLD law
except as to registration.
In Essex County mu ntcipal uncludinG
township elections are held IN the spring.
except in the case of the city of Newark,
where the municipal election takes place
10 October.
The election for members of Assembly
- =