The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1910-03-15
Lofiand va Hiltnn

q
Wednesday, as Supreme Court Commits
sioner to take evidence in the quo war
ranto proceedings instituted by Alfred W..
Lofiand, of Evesham, against Joseph l..
Hilton, of Chester. At the first meeting
of the Board of Freeholders after his
election as member from Evesham town
ship, Mr.. Lofand entered objection to Mr..
Hilton getting as freeholder from Chester
while he was also holding the Office of
County Supervisor of Roads. Mr.. Lof-
land took the ground that Mr.. Hilton had
no right to be a member of the Board
which fixed his salary and that he was
bound to relinquish one of the Offices
Mr.. Hilton did not, of course, take
kindly to any such suggestion, and Mr..
Lofland went to the Supreme Court for an
order to show cause why the member
from Chester should not give up one If
not both of the positions. Carrow and
Kraft, OF Camden, represented Mr.. Lof
land, Mr.. Kraft appearing at the hearing,
ex-senator Samuel K. Robbins taking
care of Mr.. Hilton's side Of the case.
Mr.. Lofand was the first witness and
testified that he had lived in Evesham
township for long time, owns property
there and is the present member of the
Board of Freeholders from that township.
ton, and knew that the latter was acting
in dual capacity for the county
Ernest ID. Holeman, clerk of the Board
OF Freehelders, presented the minutes of
the Board, showing the election first of
Edwin s. Buzby. then Joseph L. Hilton
as county supervisor of roads. The salary
was first 81 200, but In 1908 a resolution
was adopted allowing Mr.. Hilton $500 for
travelling expenses.
County Clerk Knight was called to
prove that the necessary oaths and bonds
had been filed by Mr.. Hilton.
Mr.. Hilton testified that at the time of
his election as Supervisor of Roads he
was member of the Board of Freeholders
and still holds both positions. He was
elected in 1908, at which time he took an
oath and filed bond, but had not re-
newed either as it was considered they
covered the period for which he had been
chosen. Up to 1907 he drew his salary as
a freeholder, but had not done so since
that date. He felt that he could give his
services in the latter capacity as he was
being amply paid as Supervisor. He had
done this on his own volition aud not on
an opinion of the solicitor of the Board
that he could not draw both salaries
There was some question whether the
by the Board, and clerk Holeman said he
did not find any record of it on his minute
book, but this was settled by County
Clerk Knight producing the papers, which
were duly signed by the Director and
Clerk of the Board, and accompanying
them was a resolution that the bond
signed by Samuel X. Robbins and Joshua
Z. Borton be approved by the Board.
This was all that Nj. Lofland had to
offer and Mr.. Robbins called Frederick
Gilkyson, State Road Commissioner, who
said he has had charge of all the roads
which receive state aid. He knows Mr..
Hilton and has had occasion TO observe
his work. He considers Mr.. Hilton a
most efficient supervisor, but that he is
much handicapped by lack of sufficient
finances to keep his work where it should
be kept. With this disadvantage Mr.. Hill
ton is to be congratulated for what he has
done. Col. Gilkyson thought 1t was to
the advantage of the county that Mr.. Hill
ton holds the Office of Freebooter and at
the same time that of Supervisor of
Roads, because he could frequently meet
the members and consult with them about
the roads in their neighborhood. He
could not recall any other county where
the Supervisor Is member of the Board
two offices were incompatible
Robert A. Meeker. State Supervisor of
Roads, said he considered Mr. Hilton one
of the most careful, conscientious officers
with whom he came In contact. The lat
ter was always asking questions and doing
his best to become acquainted with the
laws on roads and the most recent methods
of construction. In the judgment of Mr..
Meeker it was great advantage to have
the Supervisor of Roads a member of
the Board of Freeholders and If he were
called upon for an opinion he would GER
tainly give 1t in favor of combining the
two offices.
Earl Thompson, county engineer, told
of the duties of the Supervisor of Roads
and the time that he consumed in attend
ing to the work. Frequently he would be
out six days of the week. He supervised
the roads and saw that they were kept In
good shape. Mr.. Thompson could not see
where any harm came to the county in
Mr.. Hilton holding both offices. Witness
had superintended building half million
dollars worth of roads and he had felt
perfectly qualified In giving an opinion
on the efficiency of Mr.. Hilton.
Mr.. Hilton was then called by Mr..
Kraft. He said he never voted for him
q
for Supervisor, but did vote for Mr..
Buzby. He did not vote for the salary
or the increase, although he was present
on all the occasions mentioned. He did
not think his duty as Supervisor and
member Of the Board conficted. Mr..
Kraft pressed Mr.. Hilton to tell where he
drew the line between his position as
Supervisor and Freebooter, but the latter
evaded this subject. Mr.. Kraft endeav-
ored to show that Mr.. Hilton, by moi
drawing his salary as Freebooter, although
performing the duties of the Office, gave
evidence that he was convinced he did
not have the right to occupy both posi-
tions, but Mr.. Hilton would not confirm
or deny this assertion.
This ended the evidence and it will now
be presented to the Supreme Court fol
argument.
Hedd1ng.
Mrs. Margaret Riker, OF New York, hal