Perth Amboy evening news., 1923-11-20
GET ADVICE IN
HARTMAN CASE
Aldermen Receives Opinion
from Harry Medinets, Spe-
ciaI Counsel for City Board
URGES CHANCERY MOVE
If City Believes Its Case is
Strong Enough to Convince
the Court

The aldermen last night received
and referred to the committee of the
whole an opinion from Harry s.
Medinets relative to what steps the
city should take in the court fight
being waged against it by William
Hartman a former detective here
Hartman sued the city for $500
back pay and costs, the district
court rendering verdict in favor
of the plaintiff. The city never paid
the judgment nor did it appeal.
Leo Lowenkopf, attorney for
Hartman, nov has applied for a writ
of mandamus to compel the city to
pay the judgment. Not being GER
tain of what steps they should pur-
sue in this matter, the aldermen at
their last meeting, decided to secure
an opinion advising them in this
matter Counselor Medinets in his
opinion, advises the city to go imme-
diately into chancery and ask for
the restraint of the present judg-
ment if the aldermen are satisfied
| that they have a sufllciency of evil
dence with which to prove to the
court that Hartman's resignation
was accepted on his promise or the
promise of one speaking in his be-
| half, that he would waive all claims
to his back salary if the charges
pending against him were with
drawn.
The opinion in full follows:
| Hon. Board of Aldermen,
City Hall,
| City.
Nov. 10Th, 1928.
RE: WILLIAM HARTMAN VS..
CITY OF PERTH AMBOY
| Gentlemen:
The Judiciary Committee of your
Honorary Body called upon me re-
| specting an opinion relative to the
above entitled matter.
Statement Of Facts
On November 22nd, 1922 a sum-
! mons in this matter was issued out
of the Perth Amboy District Court
returnable on November 27th, 1922
! to recover wages; Leo Lowenkopt
appeared as Attorney of the plain
tiff, and Leo Goldberger as Attor-
ney for the City of Perth Amboy
| The case was adjourned until De-
cember 11th, 1922; then to Decem-
ber 14th, 1922; then to December
18th, 1922.
On December 18th, 1922, counsel
representing the respective parties
appeared. The case was called and
for some reason. which does not
appear on record, the same was dis
missed by way of non-suit.
On December 18, 1922, Leo Low
enkopf, Attorney for the plaintiff,
prepared a written notice addressed
to the City of Perth Amboy and Leo
| Goldberger, it's Attorney, wherein
! and whereby he gave notice that on
December 21st. 1922 at 10 o'clock
in the forenoon, that he would make
| applicati IN to have the court re-
conside- the decision of non-suit
rendered in the above entitled mat
| ter on the 18th day of December
1922, and at the same time would
move for judgment of the plaintiff
VS. the defendant. This notice was
filed with the clerk Of the district
court of Perth Amboy on December
21st. 1922.
The records of the district court
Go not show whether or not any
of the attorneys appeared on that
day relative to this notice, nor do
the records show that this notice
was ever served upon the city, or
it's attorney as no affidavit of SER
vice is attached thereon nor any
acknowledgment of service. The
records of the court do not show the
disposition of this notice. excepting
an adjournment to December 28th'
1922.
On December 2Sth, 1922 the
plaintiff appeared by David WllentZ.
as the attorney of Leo Lowenkopf
attorney of record. There was not
appearance for the city on this day.
| Judgment was entered for FIVE
| Hundred Dollars and Twenty Eight
Dollars ana Sixty cents costs.
On July 18th, 1928 the Honorable
James ]. Bergen, Justice OF the Su-
preme Court signed Rule to Snow
Cause on Motion for Mandamus' re-
ouiring your body, as well as certain
other City Officials, to show cause
on November 18th, 1922, why per-
4 emptory or alternative writ of Man
damus shall not be issued out or the
supreme Court commanding the pay
ment forthwith of the amount of the
4 Judgment in this matter.
, ] am advised by your Judiciary
, Committee that this matter has been
adjourned from time to time and Is
still pending.
OPINION
All appeals from judgments of the
: District Court must be made within
= twenty days aftenthe entry of judg-
! ment, consequently your right to ap-
peal has been lost.
A motion in the District Court tc
set aside a judgment and grant a
Continued on Page y
For the Thanksgiving Turkey. double