The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-07-07
KNOCK down FOR GREEN
Judge Lippincott Decides
That He Usurps the Of
flee of County
Director.
VERDICT ORDERED FOR CLAYTON
But as an Appeal Was Taken the
"comblne" Will Rule for
Months TO Come.
VERDICT ORDERED FOR CLAYTON

ranto proceedings in the suit of Clayton
against Green, for the Directorship of the
Board Of Freeholders to- an abrupt ter
mination this morning by directing the
jury to find a verdict of guilty against
the defendant The verdict means that
Freeholder Green is guilty of usurping
the office of Director. AT the same time
the Court announced that, If the defend-
ants counsel desired it, a rule to show
cause why the verdict so directed should
not be taken to the Supreme Court for
review. would be granted at once.
Mr. Corbin took the rule and conse-
quently Freeholder Clayton will not be
able to take possession of the Directors $
chair for some time yet.
After recess yesterday afternoon some
testimony was taken. but 1t was only a
repetition of the facts set forth in the
minutes. Mr. McDermott summed UP for
the defendant and Mr.. MCGEE for the re-
lator. III !, 10, s,,,5's.sss1ss 2. sS1ss
At the opening of Court this morning,
Justice Lippincott said that at the close
of the case yesterday he had thought of
simply directing verdict for one side or
the other without discussing any of the
questions involved, and granting the de-
feated party, if it was desired, a rule to
show cause why the verdict SO rendered
should not be set aside by the Supreme
Court. After mature deliberation, how
ever, he concluded that that would not be
the proper thing to do.
Il have not had the time,' he con-
tinued, ito give the matter the considera-
ton it should have. I think this is a
case of great Importance, especially in re-
iation to the principles which govern
municipal bodies. 1t is matter of very
little moment, except in the interest of
good government who is the Director of
the Board of Freeholders. It comes very
often that the election of Director is
brought about by combinations which are
hardly justifable in law and are very
reprehensible. One combination elected
the relator. Another combination at
tempted to oust him with or without
cause. AS the facts are not questioned,
I have determined to direct a verdict and
relieve the jury of responsibility.
The Director is chosen by the Board.
He has the power to act as presiding Off
Ger, to control the proceedings at the
meetings in accordance with the rules,
or in the absence of rules in accordance
with his best knowledge of parliamentary
procedure. AS Director he has the right
to appoint the committees of the Board,
that is to name the members of them /
subscribe to the contention that he is the
servant of the Board and not its ruler
1t is his duty to submit motions and
resolutions. He may declare motions or
resolutions out of order, but when an ap-
peal is taken he must submit it to a vote.
to the decision of the Board. He protects
himself by his vote from the consequences
of any illegal action taken by the Board.
He may refuse to sign an illegal order
for the payment of money and he has the
exclusive right to name committees. The
Director is a public officer who is to be
elected at stated times. The act of 1894
increases the term Of the Office to two
years. I do not say that the Director can
not be removed for disability or refusal
to perform his duties. 1t is only proper
that the power of removal should be pos
sessed by the Board.
The power of removal may exist in the
Board. The Director may be removed for
refusal to perform his duties, but reject
the view that he can be removed at any
time at the mere whim and caprice of the
majority. If that were the case the tenure
of office of the Director would be con-
trolled by the energy and facility with
which members of the Board could form
new combinations. If that were so there
might be a new Director at every meet
ing.
1T is conceded for the purposes of this
case that the Director can be removed
for cause. If the presiding officer is an
obstruction to the proper transaction Of
business that obstruction can be removed.
1t is not for this jury, but for the Court
to say whether sufficient cause existed for
the removal of the relator. The facts
are not disputed. The minutes which
were submitted in evidence show that the
conduct of the Director was total dis
regard of the will of the majority. He
was arbitrary in his actions and disre-
gartled his duties as presiding officer.
moval and was he removed legally? a
special meeting was called. The notices
for the meeting did not state that the
removal of the Director would be a SUBJ
ject of consideration at the meeting.
am constrained to deny that the
resolution of removal constituted any
vacancy. True the Director was
present, but he had been given nc
notice that the question Of his removal
would be considered. He was afforded
no opportunity for defence. The resolu-
zion was adopted Immediately after Il
was offered This could only have beer
done after reasonable notice. The action
of the Board was not judicial, and is
therefore, of no value / find no au-
thority for such a summary removal
without charges being made and with
out giving the relator an opportunity fol
defence. l have come to this conclusion
after much hesitation and with much diff
ficulty.'
The jury found verdict Of guilty
against the defendant, in accordance
with the instructions of the Court. Mr.
Corbin took rule TO show cause and
that ended another. chapter of the con-
troversy. Clayton and Green and several
other Freeholders were in court. Clayton
was, of course. elated and Green was
correspondingly depressed.
Freeholder Piercy was the happiest
man in the court room.
MATTERS or FA0r.