Case Name: ANDREAS ALMINDIE v. BOARD OF EXCISE COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1906-06-11
Citations: 73 N.J.L. 464
Docket Number: 
Parties: ANDREAS ALMINDIE v. BOARD OF EXCISE COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN.
Judges: Before Justices Fort, Pitney and Reed.
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 73
Pages: 464–465

Head Matter:
ANDREAS ALMINDIE v. BOARD OF EXCISE COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN.
Argued February 26, 1906
Decided June 11, 1906.
Where the function of a certiorari is the same as that of a writ of error, it will not, in ordinary cases, be issued until the conclusion of the proceedings that are to be reviewed.
On application for allowance of certiorari.
Before Justices Fort, Pitney and Reed.
For the applicant, Frederick A. Bex.
For the respondent, Edwin G. C. Bleakly.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Pitney, J.
We are asked to allow a writ of certiorari for the purpose of reviewing a complaint that has been made in writing, under oath, against the applicant, Almindie, charging him with violation of an ordinance of the board of excise commissioners of the city of Camden. Upon this complaint a warrant has been issued for Almindie's arrest to answer the charge therein contained. Whether he has been taken into custody does not appear.
The application for certiorari in this case is premature, there being as yet no adjudication against the applicant. Where the function of a certiorari is the same as that of a writ of error, it will not, in ordinary cases, be issued until the conclusion of the proceedings that are to be reviewed. State, Elder, pros., v. District Medical Society, 6 Vroom 200; State, Hoxsey, pros., v. Paterson, 10 Id. 489, 493; Drake v. Plume, 15 Id. 362; Farrow v. Springer, 28 Id. 353; Unger v. Fanwood, 40 Id. 548.
The application will therefore be denied, with costs.