The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1914-07-14
Mcfarland is Supervisor.

Judge Carrow filed an opinion, on
Thursday, in the contested road super
visor case heard recently, Samuel c..
Roberts against the Board of Freehold
ers.
Roberts, who was appointed county
supervisor of roads by the recent small
board of freeholders, was not recognized
by the large board when it regained
charge of county affairs, and they elected
Stuart Mcfarland on January 1st last.
Roberts brought suit to regain the po-
sition.
Judge Carrow's opinion follows:
The board of chosen freeholders of
Burlington county in 1913 was only de
facto body, but it is conceded by counsel
for the defendant in this case that in
view Of the decision of the court of er-
rors and appeals in Brinkeroff VS.. Jersey
City, "a N. j. l.. 225, de facto munich
pal body possesses the requisite power to
fill de jure Office.
The plaintiff on September 2, 1918, was
appointed by this de facto board to the
office of supervisor of roads for five years,
and he at once qualified and entered
In January, 1914, de iure board of
chosen freeholders was created for Bur-
lington county, and on January ID, 1914,
said board appointed one Mcfarland to
the Office of supervisor of roads, which
was then held by the plaintiff. McFar-
land qualified and entered upon the
duties of his Office, but notwithstanding
this situation of affairs plaintiff claims
to be the only legal supervisor of roads
of Burlington county and he has brought
this action for salary accruing during
this controversy, and if there was no
other objection to his claim, excepting
that the body that appointed him was
only de facto and not a de jure body,
he would be emitted to succeed. But he
is confronted with the fact that in No
vember, 1912, he was elected as one of
the members of the de factO board for a
term of three years and until his success
sor should be chosen and qualified, and
on September 2, 1918, he resigned from
the board and was elected on the same
day by the board to the said Office of
supervisor of roads. In view of this con-
dition of fact the defendant insists that
plaintiff was prohibited by law P. l..
1885, p. 17S), &c. S. 1859, from holding
an Office which was required to be filed
by the municipal body during the term
| for which he was elected as a member.
Plaintiff contends that the legislative
act in question does not apply to boards
of chosen freeholders and especially to
de facto boards. These objections are,
however, without any tenability, because
the plain design of this legislation was
| to prevent a member of q municipal
body from using his power to get an
office which was required to be filed by
that body, Doyle VS.. Bayonne, "a N. j.
l.. 313), and the fact that this was only a
de facto body can make no difference,
because the act comprehends all NUM-
cipal bodies carrying on the functions OF
government without regard to whether
they be de facto or de iure bodies. BALD
win VS.. Atlantic City r. r. Co. 85 Vroom
p. 1922, (Stuhr vs.. Curran, Is Vroom p
1871.
True, this is not the way to settle the
title to a public Office, but if plaintiff is
not the legal incumbent of the Office he
cannot collect the salary therefor.
1 The result of these observations is tc
entitle the defendant to judgment.