Case Name: BOARD OF HEALTH OF THE TOWN OF WEST HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY, APPELLANT, v. WARREN J. DUCKETT, RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1918-10-11
Citations: 92 N.J.L. 506
Docket Number: 
Parties: BOARD OF HEALTH OF THE TOWN OF WEST HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY, APPELLANT, v. WARREN J. DUCKETT, RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 506–507

Head Matter:
BOARD OF HEALTH OF THE TOWN OF WEST HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY, APPELLANT, v. WARREN J. DUCKETT, RESPONDENT.
Argued June 24, 1918
Decided October 11, 1918.
On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
“'The defendant, a practicing physician in the town of West ' Hoboken, was sued for the recovery of a penalty for failing to report to the local board of health a birth in that town, according to the provisions of the act regulating that subject. Pamph. L. 1909, p. 168.
“The defendant relied upon the fact that he had made his report to the county board of health, which act he insists is a compliance with the requirements of the law. Hudson county is exceptional in the fact that it possesses a county board of health and vital statistics.
“The legal status of that board has been settled by the Court of Errors and Appeals in State v. Hudson County Board of Health, 85 N. J. L. 13. The District Court held that the filing of the certificates with the county board was a compliance with the provisions of the act of 1909, and gave judgment for the defendant.
“The construction of the legislation upon this subject is not without its difficulty, but we are inclined to think, in view of the effect of the decision referred to, which in effect fixes the legal status of the county board for the purposes of its creation, that the report made to it by the defendant was a compliance with the requirements of the act of 1909, and that the judgment below should be affirmed.”
For the appellant, Frederick K. Hopkins.
For the respondent, Frank K. Runyon.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Bergen, Kalisch, Black, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, JJ. 9.
For reversal — None.