The Morris County chronicle. [volume] (Morristown, N.J.) 1877-1915, 1908-06-16

the town, but it is unnecessary as the
case now stands, TO consider the ques-
tion of Mr.. Burke'S good faith. The
rule which is applealed to by the pro-
secuUorS relates TO proceedings of ju-
dicial character and rests upon the
principle that no one should be a
judge in his own cause. Whether the
proceeding is of a judicial character
or not is the question TO be deter
mined. Moore v. Haddonfeld, 33
Vroom 1856. Sears v. Atlantic City, Al
Vroom TO.
We think the present proceedings
proceeding was legislative, not judi
cal.
The determination of the place of
location of the disposal works was a
part of the general plan or scheme
which the act required the sewerage
commission to adopt and submit to
the governing body of the town. That
body in turn after a public hearing,
might accept, modify, or reject the
plan. If they accepted, it must still
be submitted to the voters at a special
election, of which notice was required
to be given. The action of the sewer
age commissioners therefore was only
preliminary step to legislative ac-
tion on the part OF the voters them
selves, and was not in itself final or
binding. 1t is perhaps too much to
call such a recommendation of the
sewerage commissioners a legislative
act it certainly is not judicial. We
think Mr.. Burke's interest as an own
er of the land did not vitiate the pro-
ceedingS.
In proceedings of this character,
where the approval of the voters is re-
quired, definite plan must be sub
mitted. The criticism of the present
proceedings is that no piece of ground
in either Hanover Township or Morris
Township was designated with preci-
sion. The report of the board of sew
erage designated the location as NEAR
the road dividing the Township of
Morris from the Township of Hanover
and near the old burnt mill, said dis
poSal works to be constructed without
The limits of the Town of Morristown
and in either the Township OF Morris
or in the Township of Hanover as
shall be considered most desirable as
the work progresses. The statue
section A requires the board of sew
erage commissioners to determine
whether the system shall extend
throughout the town, or If in parts Of
che town only in what parts through
what streets it shall be constructed !;
in what manner the sewage shall be
disposed of, and if~by connecting with
disposal works without the limits Of
the town, the general location of such
connecting sewer or sewers. This
language indicates that it was not the
exact and precise, but only the general
location of the disposal works that was
to be determined in advance. 1t is not
questioned that the report sufficiently
indicates this general location. In
fact it Indicated it with sufficient pre-
cision to arouse opposition on the part
of the present prosecutors. We think
the report complied with the statute.
The last objection argued applies to
the contract only. 1t Is said to be I'M
authorized because at the time it was
made the Town did not own the land
on which the disposal works were TO
be built. We think it a sufficient an
Swer that some six months before the
contract was signed, the commission
| received written offer to convey the
land from Pruden and Burke which
seems TO be still open, acceptance hay
ing been delayed only because the pres
emit controversy arose, and that the
commission was authorized to acquire
the land by condemnation and had
passed a resolution authorizing theil
counsel to apply for a commission
The conclusive answer, so far as the
present prosecutors are concerned, Is
chat no other location would comply
with the vote OF the people adopting
| the plan Of the board of sewerage. In
this respecu, the prosecutors are IN
| laches.
/ The nfonnsnd lncati0n az the disnosa