Albert v. Caldwell, 33.

• Decision Date: 19 September 1941
• Docket Number: No. 33.,33.
• Citation: 127 N.J.L. 203,21 A.2d 782
• Parties: ALBERT et al. v. CALDWELL, Director of Public Safety, et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

21 A.2d 782

127 N.J.L. 203

ALBERT et al.

v. CALDWELL, Director of Public Safety, et al.

No. 33.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Sept. 19, 1941.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. In ascertaining whether a writ of certiorari should be refused because of laches, the lapse of time should generally be considered as running from the date when the legal injury occurred.

2. Where by city ordinance, appointments to the office of patrolman are to be made from the body of "chancemen" and by the Civil Service Act and rules, candidates for patrolman are required to pass a physical and mental examination, while no legal injury to the chance force is committed by examining others than chancemen, there is a legal injury to a chanceman candidate who has also passed the examination, if and when a nonchanceman is appointed.

The CHIEF JUSTICE, and WOLFSKEIL, Judge, dissenting.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Certiorari proceeding by Frank J. Albert and others against Maurice H. Caldwell and others. From a judgment of the Supreme Court which dismissed the writ, 126 N.J.Law 125, 18 A.2d 623, prosecutors appeal.

Reversed.

William A. Lord, of Newark, for appellants.

Joseph F. Zeller, of Newark, for respondents.

PARKER, Justice.

The writ of certiorari was directed to the appointment by respondent Caldwell, Director of Public Safety of the City of Orange, of one Miller as a patrolman on the police force, said Miller not being a "chanceman" nor having served as such, as required by the local ordinance as a condition of eligibility to appointment as patrolman. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ on the authority of the similar case of DeStefano v. Civil Service Commission, decided at the same time and reported in 126 N.J.L. 121, 18 A.2d 621 apparently holding in that case that while chancemen if otherwise eligible are entitled to preference in appointment, the prosecutors were barred by laches. In that case the Civil Service Commission announced an examination to be held on April 28, 1938, which was protested by DeStefano and others as not confined to chancemen. The examination was held, but not until September 15, 1939, was defendant Rizzo (not a chanceman) appointed. DeStefano and his associates, however, did not move until May 17, 1940, over eight months later, on which day certiorari was allowed. The Supreme Court held that the inclusion of non-chancemen in the examination was irregular, and as we understand the opinion, that the appointment of a non-chanceman was...