The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1910-11-22
Children Cry
FOR FLETCHER'S
CA 8 TO RIA
Lohand VS.. Hilton.

@@AA~0A-e
A decision in the case of Alfred w. LOT
land against Joseph L. Hilton, to deter
mine whether the latter is entitled to
hold the Office of member of the board of
freeholders and that of county supervisor
of roads, was rendered by the Supreme
Court last week, Justice Garrison deliver
ing the opinion. The case was submitted
to the court on the eighth day of July,
and was presented on behalf of Mr.. Lof-
land by Carlow & Kraft Mr.. Hilton's
counsel were Charles Evan Merritt and
Samuel K. Robbins.
The claim of Mr.. Lofland was that Mr..
Hilton was not entitled to hold the Office
Of freeholder and also that of supervisor
of roads. as the latter position was one
within the gift of the Board, the salary
being fixed by the body of which Mr..
Hilton was member.
The opinion of the court is as follows:
leave will be given to a taxpayer to
file an information in the nature of quo
warrantO In the name of the Attorney
General to test the right of the respondent
to hold an Office If he has afterwards &C.
cepted an election to higher incompati-
able office.
"There are two rules to show cause why
leave should not be granted to the relator
to file an information In the name of the
Attorney General in the nature of quo
warranto, in the one case against Joseph
L. Hilton as a chosen freeholder of Bur-
lington County and in the other case
against him as surveyor of the highways
of said county.
1.-THE respondent is member of the
board of freeholders and has been contin-
uously since 1904. On May Is, 1907, he
was elected by the board of which he was
member. supervisor of county roads for
three years, his term being extended by
the Meeker Act until Jan. 1, 1911. In
November, 1908, he was re elected men,
Der of the board of freeholders and still
continues in Office.
"The act of 1908, d. ISL. Sec. 10. pro-
vides for the appointment by the free
holders of the supervisor, with bond to be
approved by the board. He Is subject to
the supervision of the board; his salary is
fixed by the board; he certifes bills for
payment to the board and it is not shown
that when he was appoined, being present
at the meeting, he did not vote for himself.
1T is claimed by the relator that these
offices are inconsistent and we think that
under State VS.. Thompson spencer $780,
these offices are incompatible, at least it is
doubtful and in such cases leave will be
granted. The question then arises as to
which writ the relator shall have leave to
| prosecute He should not be allowed to
prosecute both; he is a taxpayer acting
in behalf of the public and makes no
claim to either office.
1.-The respondent was member of the
board of chosen freeholders on May 10,
1907, when he was elected supervisor OF
roads. He qualified as supervisor and was
so acting In November, 1908, when he was
again elected as chosen freeholder which
latter office he still holds. The ordinary
rule is that upon the acceptance of another
office the first becomes vacant If incom-
patible, and that writ of quo warranto is
the remedy to settle the question of in.
compatibility. Oliver vs. Jersey City, "a
Vroom, p. 643.
Sometimes the dignity of the two of
fees is regarded. In the present case the
Office to which the respondent was elected
was the higher. We think, therefore
that leave should be given to file an In
formation in suit against the respondent
as supervisor, and that such leave should
be denied as to the Office of freeholder."
The above opinion does not, as has beer
reported, depose Mr.. Hilton from thu
office of supervisor of roads, but it give
Mr.. Lofand the privilege of institutinl
other proceedings in the matter and allow
him ito file an information to test tn,
right of the respondent (Mr. Hilton tt
hold an Office if he has accepted an cleo
ton to higher incompatible office" Mr.
Loaand now has the right to bring suit t,
Dust Mr.. Hilton from the Office of super
visor as the court has decided that tn
office of freeholder takes precedence.
This action will at once be instituted b,
Mr.. Lofand who is determined to hav
the matter definitely settled and it will
be opposed by Mr.. Hilton, so that it will
be some time before the subject is decided
In his opinion Justice Garrison says
is shown that Mr.. Hilton was present Il
the board of freeholders when electe
supervisor of roads, but it was not show
that he did not vote for himself This
a fact. The minutes of May Is, 1907, sho,
that two names were presented for cor
sideration-Mr. Hilton and Mr.. Buzby
The gentlemen who nominated Mr.. Buzb
offered to withdraw his name, but Charlie
E. Woodward objected and a ballot wa
taken. Mr.. Hilton received "a votes, Nj
BuzbY 8 votes, not voting, 8. But ther
Ia nothing to show who did and who di
not vote.