Case Name: JAMES H. KELLY, PROSECUTOR, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF JERSEY CITY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1913-10-02
Citations: 85 N.J.L. 373
Docket Number: 
Parties: JAMES H. KELLY, PROSECUTOR, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF JERSEY CITY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 85
Pages: 373–374

Head Matter:
JAMES H. KELLY, PROSECUTOR, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF JERSEY CITY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.
Argued June 17, 1913
Decided October 2, 1913.
On error to tile Supreme Court, in which court the 'following per curiam was filed:
This is a writ of certiorari to review the action of the board of police commissioners of Jersey City in the trial and conviction of James II. Kelly, a captain of police, of neglect of duty and misconduct in office in violating the police rules, and his reduction in rank as a penalty.
The case has abundance of evidence to support such finding. The existence of the evil was fully proved and there was evidence to show that during the period of prosecutor’s reports to the contrary, the vice was existing and that he had been notified or warned of that fact.
While it is the duty of this court under an existing statute (Pamph. L. 1907, p. 95) to consider and weigh the evidence and has done so, yet we find nothing to disturb the result reached by the police board. Our conclusion is that the conviction was legally made and should be affirmed.
For the plaintiff in error, Merritt Lane.
For the defendant in error, James J. Murphy.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Prosecutor was found guilty on charges of dereliction in duty after a lengthy hearing before the board of police commissioners, and punished by reduction in rank as a police officer. On a review of the conviction before the Supreme Court on certiorari, that court examined the whole evidence and decided that the conviction was justified by the weight of evidence. The case has again been argued before this court as though a review could again be had on weight of evidence, but under the well-settled rule this court will not examine into a finding of fact by the Supreme Court farther than to ascertain whether there is any legal evidence to support it. Our examination satisfies us that there was ample evidence for the board and the Supreme Court to base their findings upon; and we find no prejudicial error in the admission or rejection of evidence or in other rulings by the trial body.
The judgment of the Supreme Court will he affirmed.
For affirmance — The Chtee Justice, Trehcitard, Parker, Minturh, Kaliscií, Vredenburgi-i, Congdon, White, Heppeni-ieimer, JJ. 9.
For reversal — None.