The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1893-02-16
AGAINST THE CITY.
Ballot Box Suffers and
Men Put to Work Must
Be Paid, Judge Lip
pincott Holds.

ass
Judge Lippincott today rendered his
decision in the old laborers' cases OF John
Helms. Charles Beel, Gantlieb Shaun.
Michael Dermody, Adam Arnold, Martin
Goetz, Joseph Dosch, Hugh Kelly,
Timothy Kern. Louis Hebb, Phillip
Keller, Thomas Bowling. Richard Car
ran, George Wright, Adam Fell, Adam
Schaeffer. Stephen Lane, Christian
Schem against tho Mayor and Alder
men.
Judge Iippincott said:-
The above cases were argued In this Court on
appeal upon an agreement of fact IN writing.
This statement shows that these plam5Hs
were employed by committee of tue boara re- OF
Public Works of the City of Jersey CITY,
delegated by said Board to employ them as
common laborers on street, sewers, &C., In the
City of Jersey City, that they had been previous
ly employed iu the same capacity, and had been
paid by the CITY, that the services or
worK for which suit is brought
has been honestly performed; thar the charges
or compe nsation sued for for this work and
services, is a reasonable ore; that payment OF
the same has been ordered by said Board or
Board Of Finance and Taxation of the city had
concurred in the resolution of payment; that
such resolution was presented 10 mayor
Cleveland of said city, and by hm approved,
and that before fling such resolution with the
City Clerk warrants on the Treasurer of the
said city for the payment OF said CLAIMS were
duly drawn, the same were presented TO the
Mayor and by him signed; they were counter
signed by the Comptroller and presented TO the
City Treasurer and by him signed, but the war,
rants were never delivered TO p.aintlHs ano
have never been paid
The agreement states that there was an ap-
Or opriation sufficient to meet these claims IN the
made for payment and refused. 1t is conceded
that the service was honestly performed and
that the city had received the benefits of the
service.
Upon this statement of facts, there can be no
defense whatever to the payment of these
claims. Upon the argument of the case, it wa
urged in behalf of the city that these workme n,
plaintiffs could not be legally employed by
Committee of the Board of Public Works. to
whom the power to employ these workmen
was delegated 1t was contended that the only
method by which person could be employed
to perform such services was by an act or reso-
luton adopted by the Board at some regular or
special meeting and that these plaintiffs not
being so employed in this manner could not re-
cover for the services
There is much force In this proposition, and IL
the right of recovering depended lone upon the
fact that they were employed by force OF sons
action of committee of the Board, or by any
such member of it, it would be extremely
doubtful whether these suits could be main
tanned It Is general principle that public
corporations can only enter into bindlng ana
valid contracts In matters over which they have
jurisdiction in the manner prescribed by the
statute, and services which are rendered without
contracts or employment made in the manner
Prescribed, however much benefit may be re-
ceived by the public from such services are only
volu ntary in law and no action can be main
tanned therefore.
The Court has concluded that 1t is not neces-
sary here to examine and decide whether the
employment of these plaintiffs was legal one
or not, or whether they were employed in the
method prescribed by the statutes governing
entirely within the powers of the Board OF Pub
lie Works especially if the Board of Finance
aud Taxation concur to employ laborers TO work
on the streets and sewers, that is to employ
lahorers for just such serYicess as these plain
tiffs were employed to perform. The
method & prescribed s,o, the ne .sa statute
no restriction upon the pow er to employ them,
and, therefore, employment would have been
entirely legal If this manner OF employment had
ment of facts, that the services we're hon
estly performed and the city received the
benefit of such services. After the services were
performed, the CLAIMS were duly presented to
the Board Of Public Works. were audited, found
correct, approved and warrants by their resolu-
ton ordered drawn a. for = Tas
Taxation in accordance with the provisions of
the charter of Jersey City, and the warrants
v S On s b1 sfor the ana Sy sy ae
signed by the Comptroller and Treasurer.
COMPLETE RATIFICATION,
This the Court, under the authorities in this
State, concludes was a complete ratification,
and 1t would be immaterial how much want of
m ethod there had been in the employment so
long as the services were ere honestly per
benefit of them, the compensation being
rea sonable. By these acts of the entire city au-
thorites there was ratification OF the contracts
of employment however made, and OF perform
ance of the services and compensation to be
provided. The doctrine Of ratification In such
matters has been too often and too well sus-
tanned by the courts In this State to he now
shaken, and these cases present all the facts re-
quiring ratification
Recovery in these cases therefore may be had
for the amounts stated in the stipdlations in
favor Of the plaintiffs against the defendant.
THE. sTUFFERs' APPEAL.
Judge Llppincott aiso gave his decision
In the more recent cases of city employees
against the city. This suit Is commonly
known rs the "hallot box stuff
ers' case" The plaintiffs In this
suit were Nathsuiei Fowler James
L. Dean, Patrick Mahoney, Abram Post,
MuIlery, Louis Killer, Patrick Glen
non, Thomas Nelson, John II. Sullivan,
Joseph Buckridge, James Hart, Michael
Kelly, Oliver c. Stringham, Frank L.
Herrick. Thomas Trotter, Johns. DAILY.
Judge Lippincott said:-
These cases, on appeal, were argued together
upon statement of facts made in open Court
and reduced to writing. Tais statement of
facts set forth that these plaintiffs were en-
Commissioners, duly adopted, to per-
form clerical duties, such as keep
ing. accounts and mating, out bills
May, June, July and Auguet, 1892 They had
for some time previous to these months been in
the employment of the city engaged in the
same work The payroll of the Board of
Street and Water Commissioners con-
tain the names of these plaintiffs at the salary
fixed by the Board which payroll for the pay
ment of these monthly Compensation was
passed by the Board OF Street and
in by the Board Of Finance
and warrants were drawn for their salaries and
presented TO the Mayor, who refused to sign
them on the ground that the plaintiffs had been
convicted of q conspiracy to obstruot the eiec-
tion laws Of this State.
LEGALLY APPOINTED.
There is no question made that the appoint
ment of the plaintiffs to This employment was
not legally made in accordance with the pro
visions of tine charter. On the other hand it is
expressly conceded that they were appointed by
resolution in accordance with the charter. 1t is